Deletion of Trump Derangement Syndrome

Comment: Another symptom of the |recentism bias Wikipedia suffers from, especially in regards to politics. Sure anyone could lazily say "easily passes GNG", but you are ignoring |NOTNEWS, a fundamental policy, at the encyclopedia's own peril. Let us not forget policy just to get in a jab at Trump with an unnotable neologism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to Donald Trump or other appropriate target. Stand-alone stub article. The term might not be obsolete in the short term, however when another president gets in the White House (at the very latest in 6 + something years, though probably before then), the term will not be used anymore. Therefore, per , and in the spirit of , there is no need for us to cover every appearance of this term or op-ed about it in a separate article. The similar section about Bush is in the rticle Public image of George W. Bush - given all the controversy Trump has generated, I wonder why such a corresponding article has not yet been created. Special:Contributions/198.84.253.202|198.84.253.202
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: does not meet ; significant RS coverage not found.  per review of availalbe sources which are passing mentions and / or opinion pieces
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: This shouldn't be an article about Donald Trump because this is about people who react to Trump, not about Trump himself. Trump is a huge topic and it makes sense to split off topics that aren't about him directly. When you look this term up on Google Newshttps://www.google.com/search?q=%22Trump+Derangement+Syndrome%22&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS724US724&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia-O_i-5XbAhVJj1QKHdKvBK0Q_AUICigB&biw=1440&bih=780 and Google Scholar,https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Trump+Derangement+Syndrome%22&btnG= you can see this is already a widespread but very specific term. I looked through the sources that were already cited in the article. National Review defines Trump Derangement Syndrome as "disgust at his manner and his tweets such that all distinctions between him and genuine villains is lost."https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/trump-isnt-father-coughlin/ That seems to be the generally accepted definition of the term, which is what's described in the other sources. The New Yorker has an article about the subject.https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-persistence-of-trump-derangement-syndrome The Washington Post has several articles that discuss the topic.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberals-have-to-avoid-trump-derangement-syndrome/2017/04/13/81ff4a7a-2083-11e7-a0a7-8b2a45e3dc84_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/23/trump-derangement-syndrome-only-gets-democrats-so-/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/05/11/am-i-suffering-from-trump-derangement-syndrome-time-for-a-self-audit/?utm_term=.57428ff60956https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/to-understand-why-trump-won-look-at-democratic-hysteria/2018/05/15/7bdfd656-5867-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.613cbde013a3https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-nation-is-mired-in-bitter-impotence/2018/05/02/74decfdc-4e3b-11e8-af46-b1d6dc0d9bfe_story.html?utm_term=.e0acd99fd63c Even conservative outlets like Fox News have discussed it in printhttp://insider.foxnews.com/2018/05/10/trump-derangement-syndrome-chuck-schumer-has-it-north-korea-thiessen-saidhttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/16/want-to-understand-why-trump-keeps-winning-look-at-democratic-hysteria.html and even had a segment of it on TV.http://video.foxnews.com/v/5272280477001/?#sp=show-clips Newspapers all over the country have published articles that include significant discussion about the phenomenon. It's discussed in scholarly articles in Englishhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3153003https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3017303 and French.https://www.cairn.info/revue-le-debat-2018-1-p-51.htm The article passes  for significant discussion in independent sources over time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: or at least merge to  Donald Trump. MrX failed to mention the wide variety of sources that were on the page including the Washington Post, New Yorker, National Review,  Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Tribune.  More sources have been added including more from Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, Time, Forbes, and local newspapers.  It is obvious that the term is notable, as it has been mentioned by a wide variety of sources in publication and in television, both liberal and conservative.  The aims of  and  are not applicable here.  The article is balanced.  There is a wide range of point of views and sources.  The term is used for reflection and by critics as the article states.  As far as  (if this is considered to be a neologism, which no source calls it), the majority of the articles cite what reliable sources "say about the term or concept."  They are "not just sources that use the term."  Therefore, it does not fail  either.  This is not going to be obsolete.  It has been widespread usage from 2016 to present
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTOPINION||WP:NEO)

Comment: see also rticles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination). It's not quite clear to me which of the many articles about Trump's presidency would be the right merge (or redirect) target for this
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)