Deletion of Trump derangement syndrome

Comment: Multiple reliable sources that significantly cover this, so definitely meets . Disagree with  as this article is not merely expressing disapproval of Trump, but rather explaining this term
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTOPINION)

Comment: Obviously meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Obviously notable term that has received ample media coverage.  is not a valid reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per above. I disagree with the concept, but |it has been covered widely and deeply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: clearly a notable term with easy compliance with 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This article appears to be well-sourced with multiple |reliable, |verifiable source that establish |notability. I don't think this violates OTOPINION at all; the term itself is a loaded one, for sure, but I think the article describes it accurately and without violating POV. In fact, it appears the article describes how the term has been used and defined by ''both'' sides of the political aisle, both by pro-Trump writers to critics of Trump, and by anti-Trump commentators who say it is used by the GOP to discredit criticisms of Trump's actions. Given the subject matter, I think this is a very balanced and well-written article, and a clear Keep vote for me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:N||WP:NOTOPINION||WP:NPOV)

Comment: It's a ridiculous term, which is very clearly used in an effort to shut down any criticism of Trump by challenging the critic's sanity in an ''ad hominem'' attack without actually engaging the actual substance of the criticism — but it's clearly a notable term nonetheless, and this is a very well-balanced and well-referenced article about it. Our  rules govern the way ''we'' write ''about'' our article topics, and do not concern themselves with assessments of whether the ''subject'' is itself an inherently "neutral" or "biased" ''thing'' — NOTOPINION means that ''we'' aren't allowed to express our own political opinions in our own editorial voice, and does ''not'' mean that we're not allowed to write neutral and well-sourced and balanced articles ''about'' the notable opinions of other people
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)