Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency
I strongly support keeping First 100, as it is not a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Redundant_content_forks redundant content fork as alleged by User:Gfcvoice, who nominated First 100 for deletion. There is no  or  in First 100 and it is a valid Shortcut:WP:SPINOFF. Currently, there is a "fairly structured" series of articles, each with their own scope and formatting, President-elect of the United States|president-elect, Presidency of Donald Trump,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Presidency Donald Trump#Presidency, Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump, Presidential transition of Donald Trump, First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, a detailed account of his first months in office, List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump, a complete itinerary of his travels abroad, etc. and Political positions of Donald Trump. In these early days, there is no need to rush into deletions and merging of the Timeline and First 100 days, as these can be rectified slowly over time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timeline_of_the_presidency_of_Donald_Trump User:Markbassett provided a useful response to User:JFG's concern (08:20, 29 January 2017) that there was "a lot of redundancy" between the articles. (User:JFG was of the opinion that the article should stay at "overview level and allow easy navigation to the specialist articles. It should not list daily events or news coverage."  {{quote|"It's within category US Presidential administrations, so I believe the scope is simply the presidential activity of this president. These are NOT indexing articles to lower pieces, they are presenting the presidential activity. The series is fairly structured and scope seems the formal actions starting from the day of inauguration to last day of office and possibly some retrospective about the period later on. I think the other articles are slightly different in scope or formatting. The timeline is in chronological order. The positions could include things that are not actual actions or events and periods before and after the presidency and may refer to things."| User:Markbassett }}There is indeed "something special" about this First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency re: User:JFG. I agree with User:Anastan, that there are other useful First 100 articles, First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency|Obama and First 100 days of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency|Roosevelt and with User:Shawn in Montreal that there are not more First 100 in general as "notable" markers. Trump's 100 Days, in particular, reflects  as noted by user:Andrew Davidson and User:WereWolf, as evidenced by the local, national and international media - mass media (mainstream, alternative and social media) and Internet coverage. It is a complex period that is receiving wide, detailed and riveted attention globally and Wikipedia is reflecting that. First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency has a different scope and format from the Timeline. First 100 provides a "detailed account of his first months in office" as noted in the Timeline lede. On the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timeline_of_the_presidency_of_Donald_Trump Timeline talk page, User: Buster7 wisely noted that, "In order to maintain a strict bipartisan nature '''extreme''' brevity and conciseness is required in a timeline." The lede in the Timeline article refers to other Wikipedia articles in the interrelated series, including First 100 days as ; for a detailed account of his first months in office, see First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency; for a complete itinerary of his travels abroad, see List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump." First 100 is not a mere timeline, but provides more details with multiple wikilinks to specialist articles on specific Presidential actions, key individuals, and individual agencies, etc, underlining the importance of each issue. I agree with User:Andrew D. that the sources used are "respectable." The references in First 100 are very strong, including references to the Congressional Research Service, for example, and links to full-text actions and interviews, that are not cited in the Timeline or the Presidency articles. First 100 is definitely not Wikipedia:TOOSOON. Results of a basic key word "first 100 days" provides ample evidence of the global significance of these 100 days. According to Wikipedia:TOOSOON guidelines, 100 First fits the "various notability criteria" in that "the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content." Ample sources exist and it is not too soon. On the contrary, it is difficult to choose between an overabundance of articles analysing the First 100, just from the major news sources used by Americans alone,{{citation |url=http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2 |title=Ideological Placement of Each Source’s Audience |date=January 26, 2016 |accessdate=January 23, 2017 |work=Pew Research}}{{citation |url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/21/qa-how-pew-research-analyzed-americas-polarized-media-consumption-habits/ |author1=Drew Desilver |author2=Amy Mitchell |date=October 21, 2014 |title=Q/A: How Pew Research analyzed America’s polarized media consumption habits |work=Pew Research |accessdate=January 23, 2017}}{{citation |url=http://www.journalism.org/2017/01/18/trump-clinton-voters-divided-in-their-main-source-for-election-news/ |author1=Jeffrey Gottfried |author2=Michael Barthel |author3=Amy Mitchell |date=January 18, 2017 |title=Trump, Clinton Voters Divided in Their Main Source for Election News. Fox News was the main source for 40% of Trump voters" Pew Research |work=Journalism |accessdate=January 23, 2017}} let alone major international media. Without valid forking and the creation of new articles as history unfolds in "verifiable" independent secondary reliable sources, and existing articles become too content-heavy, Wikipedia will not be providing adequate coverage. Thanks User: for the gentle reminder to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. We are all volunteers trying to contribute to Wikipedia.{{reflist-talk|close
— User:Oceanflynn, 14:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:POVFORK||WP:POVSPLIT||WP:LISTN (Wikipedia:Content forking)