Deletion of Trump effect on school bullying

Comment: Article is for a well soured, notable topic per . The Delete votes contend the Trump effect isn't real just political, but this contradicts the sources. Rather than delete, provide sources to back up their contentions, and add to the article so it is more balanced. Clearly "trump effect" is in currency and it would be strange, indeed biased, for Wikipedia not to have coverage. The article can cover multiple meanings and uses of Trump effect -- it's also commonly applied to immigrants
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There is no actual so-called "Trump effect" that has been legitimately studied/analyzed by reliable sources. It is a  story that was written about during the height of the presidential election; it also fails  and . The  coverage does little to convince me a selective merge is required
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE||WP:LASTING||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: On the face of it we have a majority of opinions requesting deletion, but we also need to weigh the strength of the arguments made in light of Wikipedia policy. The core policy issue here is whether this supposed "Trump effect" has been covered sufficiently by reliable sources to make it notable as described in , or whether this is just a relatively ephemeral news story which we don't aim to cover as a separate article per . What we do ''not'' consider, per , are the partisan politics of the issue, i.e., whether the media (or Wikipedia) coverage of it is to the benefit or detriment of Donald Trump or other political actors.  In view of this, I must discount the "delete" opinions by Beatitudinem, Lepricavark and Stoodpointt (added: and DHeyward), because they merely object to the article for portraying Trump in a negative light. I must also give little weight to the "delete" opinions by PackMecEng and Power~enwiki because they are of the form "per X", without formulating arguments of their own. What remains are several opinions that make plausible arguments for either retaining, merging or deleting the article, but without a clear consensus emerging. I therefore ask editors to comment on whether merging some of this content somewhere might be acceptable as a possible compromise solution
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NPOV)

Comment: to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Even discounting admittedly politically motivated biased comments, it's clear from this discussion that this is insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, which I agree. However, since it has been reported on quite a bit, it should definitely be mentioned in the article about the campaign (unsure just where exactly, probably in a new section) per -M. Regards
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: on the ''Mid-Atlantic Education Review'' as a source: E.M. Gregory dismisses this source as "non-notable". In the first place, nothing in  or  or  requires a reliable source to be notable itself. (Even where the source ''is'' notable, whether that supports its reliability depends on ''why'' it is notable; the National Enquirer is notable but not reliable.) But in judging the status of the ''Mid-Atlantic Education Review'', one should be aware that it is http://maereview.org/index.php/MAER/about/journalSponsorship published and sponsored by the Rutgers Graduate School of Education, which in turn is part of Rutgers University. The journal's http://maereview.org/index.php/MAER/about About page, http://maereview.org/index.php/MAER/about/editorialPolicies#peerReviewProcess peer review and editorial policy page, and http://maereview.org/index.php/MAER/index home page (which currently shows the http://maereview.org/index.php/MAER/article/view/32 Special Issue on Public Education in the Age of Trump), are easy to find. The page for the journal on Rutgers's own website was a little harder to locate, but https://gse.rutgers.edu/maer it definitely exists, and it states that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: Note that this is the second nomination for an article called "Trump effect" but this Trump effect is a different Trump effect. Discussions on the talk page link to multiple articles using "Trump effect" to describe a number of different things but I don't think any of them are particularly notable. This "effect" was a bit of mudslinging that happened at the height of the election but has no long term significance. , ,  apply
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:10YT)

Comment: In light of {{u|Sandstein}}'s relisting and other editors' comments, I wish to re-affirm my nomination for deletion. In addition to this "effect" being anecdotal at best (as confirmed by all sources), it would be |undue weight to keep a full article about it. Other things have been loosely called "Trump effect", both supportive and dismissive of Trump (stock market, immigration, job market, foreign policy, Congress, media, etc.); none of those are notable enough for an article about the term "Trump effect" to make sense
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: or '''Redirect''' with selective merge to  Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016.  This is a classic case of  that fails  : "Routine kinds of news events (including most... political news." The SPLC, a political organization opposed to Republicans and outraged by Trump, published an informal, non-scholarly survey that got a single round of news coverage.   Almost no ; the SPLC's revisiting of the story by releasing a  survey "update" in December did not inspire a new round of coverage.   The promising-looking citations to later coverage    First: Murphy, Jason P. (Winter 2017). "Defending “all this diversity garbage”: multidimensional coalition-building in the age of Trump". Mid-Atlantic Education Review. 5 (1): 12–18.  which turns out to be a opinion essay, sort of an op-ed with footnotes, in a  non-notable.  and Second, this: ''"The presidential candidacy of Donald Trump appeared to bring further to the surface preexisting hostile attitudes toward racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and Muslims. In a national (nonrepresentative) survey of 2000 elementary and high school (K–12) teachers, more than half of respondents said that since the 2016 presidential campaign began, many of their students had been “emboldened” to use slurs and name calling and to say bigoted and hostile things about minorities, immigrants, and Muslims."'' in an article inthe New England Journal of Medicine.  I believe this to be a good summary of why this topic is non-notable.  This was not a solid piece of survey or of social science research research, the sort of thing that can be impactful as an actual gauge of popular impact or sentiment. It was "nonrepresentative," more or less the same sort of seat-of-the-pants punditry and political advocacy that the whole country has engaged in since Trump began to surge in January 2016. But not a notable one.  Just another Trump-related meme to delete or merge
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:EVENTCRITERIA||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE)