Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump racial views

Note: article was moved to Racial views of Donald Trump 22:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump racial views (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The nature of the article is incredibly biased and non-neutral, lacks encyclopedic tone, lacks encyclopedic value, basically an "article" full of trivia, pretty close to being a WP:QUOTEFARM, and seems to violate BLP standards "bigly" (at least to me). I'm neutral politically and actually lean left, but I cannot believe this even exists as an article. Or anyone thought it was a good idea to begin with. Or that anyone thinks it's encyclopedic in any way. shape. or form.

An example of the kind of POV and unencyclopedic content this article invites (because it's political, because it's "Racism!", because it's Trump - the terror trifecta that just begs controversy, POV, and bias in content and tone): [1]. If this article stands, it's only going to get worse in the way of blatant POV content without encyclopedic tone or value. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's not incredibly biased, but even it were, that's not a valid reason for deletion. The content is extremely well sourced and has been been covered for 45 years. There was a discussion at talk:Donald Trump#Racial views about the need to create this article and the support was overwhelming. It is not full of trivia, nor does it violate WP:BLP. If that argument is to be considered, one would expect it to be accompanied by some sort of evidence of how it violates WP:BLP.- MrX 00:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'll tellya what's a shithole; this nomination, a big cuppa of "I don't like it". The current president of the United States has made numerous statements that have been construed as racist by numerous reliable sources. The depth and breath of coverage regarding this man's racist statements spanning 4+ decades is staggering, with the latest comments regarding Haiti and such receiving international condemnation. This is a notable topic that would overwhelm the main biographical article, so a separate article is appropriate. TheValeyard (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no feelings of personal dislike for the article, I believe it's inappropriate by encyclopedic and Wikipedia standards. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not encyclopedic and WP:POVFORK. It's pretty much just a collection of quotes from random pundits who call Trump racist over (insert Trump controversy here). Trump's most recent remarks about Haiti and African countries (apparently the main reason this article was created) should be merged into Immigration policy of Donald Trump. ^Falling_Gravity 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, the article has a lot of prose and relatively few quotes. Most of the quotes are from Trump himself. The largest section in the article are the Central Park jogger case which provides solid background for why his actions were criticized as racially-motivated. There is a section about Trump being sued by the DOJ for housing discrimination against black people. There's a section on polling. This is a comprehensive subject with a scope beyond any existing subject except perhaps Donald Trump which is already too bloated with real estate deals and Apprentice tirvia to contain the full breadth and depth of Trump's racially-provocative remarks and actions that are perceived as racially-motivated.- MrX 03:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Central Park jogger case already has its own article where his actions are described in detail. The only inclusion criteria for this article appears to be if you get some pundit to call him racist, not that the incident actually gives us insight into his "racial views". ^Falling_Gravity 06:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure how it is a POVFORK when the lead material is essentially in Donald Trump - what POV is it forking off of. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a collection of incidents meant to prove a certain POV: that Trump is racist. ^Falling_Gravity 18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 02:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unencyclopedic NPOV violation. KMF (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  May I ask how exactly is it a POV violation? In answering, please refer to specific article content that violates specific policies outlined in WP:NPOV.- MrX

(Also "it's a POV violation" is not valid reason for deletion. Not that it is. See WP:AADD).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is probably the most widely covered and important subject related to his election campaign, his personal views and his actual policies. Consider the number of other WP pages on various events that should be linked to this page or vice versa. No, the page is not hopelessly biased. It simply covers a highly important and controversial subject. It can not be merged to Immigration policy of Donald Trump because many issue on the page are not about immigration (only some are). It should not be merged to Political positions of Donald Trump because personal views and political positions by the person are frequently not the same. The latter are results of compromise with other members of the same Party, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the breadth and depth of coverage (mostly 2016-2018) is more than enough for notability. starship.paint ~ KO 02:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that notability isn't even part of the nomination? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You wrote lacks encyclopedic value, basically an "article" full of trivia. I would think notability is the opposite of that. starship.paint ~ KO 03:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The man has now directly denied being a racist. Increasing the notability of this topic by addressing it. starship.paint ~ KO 03:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a Wikipedia litmus test and a general guideline, not the be-all-end-all for encyclopedic worth. That said, "coverage" doesn't necessarily equate notability (your litmus test). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, wait a minute. If "notability isn't even part of the nomination?", WHAT exactly is the basis for the nomination? (And don't say "it's not encyclopedic", that's circular). Here, per policy, are the reasons for deletion. Which one of them is suppose to apply? It's not a copyvio, it's not a vandalism, it's not a template, category or an image, it's not an advertisement. The ONLY possible criteria for deletion which COULD (but does not, as you admit yourself) apply is notability. And it's notable. So what IS the reason for the nomination? WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per FallingGravity. Include comments about race and immigration in Immigration policy of Donald Trump or Political positions of Donald Trump. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Housing discrimination, birtherism, and full page ads calling for black teenagers to be executed do not fit into immigration. Sorry, but this article is not only about Trump's racist comments.- MrX 03:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birtherism is covered in Donald Trump and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Donald Trump. Housing discrimination is covered in Business career of Donald Trump. Full page ads is covered in Central Park jogger case (which this article copies generously). ^Falling_Gravity 18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, even if that was done (it shouldn't) there'd still be plenty left for a full fledged, notable topic, article, so this isn't really an argument for deletion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Talk:Donald Trump#Racial views -- an appropriate WP:SPINOUT. Meets notability guidelines for stand-alone articles, with WP:SIGCOV covering the subject. Sources have been widely reporting on Mr Trump's racial views, so there's no BLP violation here. Nor is this content undue, given the extensive coverage over time. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Numerous RS have commented on his history with racially-charged etc remarks and have connected these incidents into a pattern - and thus it is encyclopedic topic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it is incredibly biased. Just because almost everyone (including republicans like Paul Ryan) have problems with his statements, and so it is generally negative against trump, doesn't mean it is biased. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the amount of sources on the topic out there is immense. The topic is encyclopedic and helluva more notable than probably a million or two Wikipedia articles. The delete votes appear to be motivated by WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the kind of content "this invites" - that definitely shouldn't be there - and indeed it isn't there in the article nor will it ever be. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While it is possible that this may be a valid topic in the future, at present we lack secondary sources that tie all these incidents together. Hence it fails notability, and instead is synthesis that connects incidents that Wikipedia editors have deemed relevant in order to prove a thesis, that Trump is a racist. Even if secondary sources could be found, it would be better to blow it up and start again, because it is easier to write a proper article than to correct a hopelessly flawed one. TFD (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, if anything there is an over abundance of secondary sources that do this? [2]. And there's nothing "hopelessly flawed" about this one either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Vox^[1] and NYT's Kristoff^[2] Avisnacks (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding on NBC's Duster^[3], Rolling Stone's Berney (2017)^[4] and Fortune's D'Antonio (2016).^[5] starship.paint ~ KO 10:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Deuces did you forget WP:BEFORE? Literally the first four references of the article tie these "incident" together. Now that it has been pointed out that your argument is completely fallacious, will you be changing your comment to keep?- MrX 15:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are opinion pieces and hence fail reliability. Furthermore you don't have any sources that establish the weight of these opinions. In a similar vein there have been a number of commentators who have called Trump a fascist, but the History Channel contacted some of the top fascism experts to weigh in on the topic. Obviously an article based on what experts say would read differently from one based on what his detractors say. And it's the same here. TFD (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The very term "race" is contested so much, and by some rejected as meaningless, that unless Trump were to write a coherent statement in which he explained what he thought of the term, we would be always hopelessly stuck in following heavily POV-pushing sources that at times speak across each other by using the same term for very different things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert, you did it: "The very term "race" is contested so much, and by some rejected as meaningless..." is the most hilarious statement of the day. Yes race as a biological construct is contested by many, esp. by many on the left, who argue that it is biologically meaningless. But sociologically it is not, and denying it is silly. That Trump doesn't understand the first thing about race in any kind of way doesn't mean he doesn't held well-publicized views on race; after all, he had no problem spotting them: "there's my African-American!" One might likewise argue that "religion" is a malleable term and regarded by many as meaningless (in a conceptual, intellectual sense), yet Religious views of Adolf Hitler exists here on Wikipedia, as do article on the religious views of many other celebs. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "POV sources". There are reliable sources and not reliable sources. If a subject is covered widely in reliable sources then it is notable. The fact that YOUJUSTDONTLIKE what reliable sources write is not a valid reason for deletion. Or much of anything on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is such a thing as POV sources, see WP:BIASED. ^Falling_Gravity 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is entirely contrary to WP:V and WP:OR. "Race (and its derivatives) is largely a social construct, but it has a commonly-understood meaning.- MrX 15:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The nomination statement accurately describes the mixture of thoughts I had when stumbling upon the article shortly after its creation. Killiondude (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to me that the nominating statement is a combination of WP:IDLI and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Can you elaborate to explain how this article doesn't meet our inclusion criteria? - MrX 17:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a pity that while stumbling you didn't happen upon a valid reason for deletion. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - more than enough sources discuss Trump and racism. This goes back to his racist property management issues years ago. POVFORK is a hilarious argument though, if only because it depends on the premise that people want to make an article that doesn't represent the consensus view about the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is highly notable and there are dozens of reportable instances of Donald Trump exuding racism. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 08:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - because racism is so taboo, those who are opposed to the transcription of Trump's racial views attempt to misconstrue the facts, out of all proportion, to fit a non-racist narrative. Perhaps the page could be both improved and made more palatable by broadening it to discuss Trump's heavy reliance on stereotyping in general (which isn't only limited to race but also includes religion and gender). Avisnacks (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - the name is jarringly ungrammatical. fish&karate 10:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate: What should we rename it to? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. fish&karate 11:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racial views of Donald Trump would be similar but fix grammar issues. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• More sources that discuss these as a group: Associated Press ^[6]; PBS^[7]. All these should be in a reflist at the bottom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:ATTACK page and unencyclopedic WP:SYNTHESIS effort. Trump's comments about incidents A, B and C can be mentioned in our articles about A, B, and C. And they usually are already prominently featured there, along with reactions to his remarks. — JFG ^talk 16:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Attack pages (i.e. Pages that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced.) should be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G10. Why haven't you nominated it as such? Also, are you able to back up you claim of WP:SYNTHESIS? The first four sources establish that there is a 45 year history of racially-provocative remarks and racially-motivated actions, as detailed throughout the article.- MrX 17:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, somewhat cautiously/reluctantly. I don't buy at all that an article topic "inviting" problematic edits is a reason for deletion, but I do think that we're often too quick to create forks of high-profile topics that receive a new wave of coverage of a different aspect of the subject in every news cycle. Among those possible forks, though, there is a whole lot more coverage of this subject -- over a long period of time and in depth -- than most others such that it seems like one we should have, regardless of how difficult it is and will always be to present this with a NPOV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position in the nomination, Rhododendrites, I've added an explanation of why I feel the article invites trouble: because it's political, because it's "Racism!", because it's Trump - the terror trifecta that just begs controversy, POV, and bias in the way of content and tone. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilkelvi: Thanks for adding. I do still reject the notions that (a) problematic editing/editors is a reason for deletion, since we have policies and guidelines to deal with that, and violating those policies (or threats thereof) should never be a way to affect content; and (b) that controversy or accusations of bias by either internal or external voices should likewise affect content that satisfies Wikipedia policies and guidelines (content which doesn't meet PAG should be fixed for that fact, not because it's controversial). I suppose there's an argument about a notable topic that cannot possibly satisfy NPOV, but I'm skeptical of that argument, and don't think this is one of them regardless. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what does "racial views" mean? FloridaArmy (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, The article is pretty clearly a WP: coatrack for all the reasons people think he's a racist. A more appropriate name for that article would be "here's why Donald Trump is a racist". And I shouldn't have to point out how an article like that fails WP: NPOV. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, kinda the point is that lots of people do think he is a racist, and many sources detail that, and thus it is significant. Of course, we'd have to include the opinions of people who don't think he is racist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you do realize that we have a requirement to be impartial in our articles, and an article that is "here's why x is this bad thing" fails being impartial on form. It's like asking the question, When have you stopped beating your wife. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it's actually nothing like asking that question (because there is a possible "good answer - no, not racist", unlike in the wife beating question). And "impartial" means "as covered in reliable sources", not "what some random Wikipedia user thinks is impartial". Indeed it would be NOT impartial NOT to have this article given how widespread the coverage in reliable sources is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Impartiality doesn't mean "as covered in reliable sources", it means we present things impartially, and do not make arguments. Sources are not required to be impartial and can make arguments. An article structure such as "here's why x is this bad thing" is not impartial, and is making an argument, even if all content is sourced. It's why we don't have "Criticisms of" style articles either, they are inherently loaded and POV. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's pretty much what impartiality means on Wikipedia - reliable sources. And what article are you referring to when you characterize it as "here's why x is this bad thing"? Certainly not this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my first comment. The article is pretty much written as "here's why trump is racist". And it's pretty clear you're conflating NPOV with V so there's no reason to try and explain impartiality further with you. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the article does it say "here's why trump is a racist" or anything remotely similar? That seems like a complete strawman, but maybe I missed something.- MrX 21:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I say that it says "here's why trump is a racist". I say it's a coatrack, and written as "here's why trump is racist". --Kyohyi (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is rather careful about it. Many sources are a lot more explicit and explain why. My very best wishes (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's an opinion article. ^Falling_Gravity 21:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyohy:, Are you suggesting that we should write about Trump's racial views without giving any examples of his racial views, even though several of the feature articles used as sources do exactly that. According to the essay you cited, a coatrack is an "article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely". What exactly are these two subjects in this article that different such that you would refer to it as a coatrack? - MrX 22:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This has signficant coverage in reliable sources. The claim of synthesis is just baffling; the article is not just a compilation of different comments or events — rather, a wide array of published material deals with the topic overall. Similar articles could be written on other presidents (for example, Woodrow Wilson). Surely we have an obligation to write this is a careful way. But we also have an equal obligation to include this topic, and in some detail. Trump is the president of the United States and what he has said and done, or reportedly said and done, is historically significant. Neutrality^talk 18:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Neutrality, starship.paint, and Volunteer Marek. AndrewOne (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IMO this "shithole" incident, which initiated the development of this article, will turn out to be a historical watershed event. It's been at the top of every news program, on talk news shows almost 24/7, and has been internationally a top news story as well. Dozens of sources are now discussing Trump's long history of racism. If this article is deleted we'd all have to believe that Wikipedia is in serious danger from a very vocal minority. Just like our democracy is. Gandydancer (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - very notable, worldwide major coverage.Smeat75 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This isn't an opinion piece and Trump's racial views are a perpetual point of contention and debate on both sides of the aisle. I believe that rather than looking at deleting this article, it should be explored if there should be a separate article about his "shithole countries" remark, assuming it does not fall under NOTNEWS. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is inevitably going to be a notable topic, and it makes no difference (or shouldn't make any difference) whether anyone likes that or not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As a deletionist, not even I can argue for the deletion of this article. President Trump's racist rhetoric has been widely covered not just by the American media, but by world media. As the President of the United States, he ran his campaign under the wagon of prejudice and racism. His racist views preceded his election as President and goes back several decades as evident in the reliable sources cited. I want to make it clear that this article is primarily about his racist views, not his policies in government. His racist views passes the notability test and have received worldwide coverage from independent reliable sources. What I am seeing here is WP:IDLI. This article is well referenced and his views have received worldwide coverage from multiple sources - each addressing his views in detail. If his racist views were not notable enough, they would not have been covered in the magnitude they were covered. I would also like to draw to the attention of the closing admin (and the community) the fact that, his racist views are not a one off or a slip of the tongue (if it was, I would have been more inclined to merge it to his article), but a pattern of behaviour that goes back decades, at least as far back as 1973 when the U.S. Department of Justice brought litigation against him, his father and their company. This pattern of behaviour continued up to his election and thereafter. This article is encyclopedic and I see nothing wrong with it as a stand alone other than "delete because I don't like it". "The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not to describe what you "like" or "don't like".31.54.224.18 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - More evidence of Wikipedia's insane liberal bias. The "sources" are a bunch of far-left politicians and partisan pundits crying racism. "Pretty Korean lady" is considered racist? How desperate are some of you? Thismightbezach (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]