The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is a notable topic, but until somebody actually wants to write an article about it, there's little point in keeping this almost empty shell in main space. The two first "keep" opinions make little sense and are disregarded. The article can be userfied or draftified or whatever the current fashion for such things may be.  Sandstein  14:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Public image of Donald Trump (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Three months have passed since the previous AfD concluded that article should be kept and expanded, but it's still mostly empty, which is stunning for such a prominent public figure. Suggest to draftify the article until there is actual substance. — JFG ^talk 09:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 6. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, Redirect, or Userfy. The existence of this paltry, completely ineffectual and non-substantive double-talk 90-word article, with two (count 'em) citations, is an embarrassment. It needs to be quickly removed from article space. Softlavender ( talk) 23:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Neutral. I supported keeping this the first time around, but seeing as no one's worked on it since, I'm neutral now. I'll go with whatever the consensus is. Ethanbas ^{( talk)} 02:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Incubate or Merge I feel that this article has potential, but also that it may be closely related to Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration -- BoredBored ( talk) 02:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep or move to draft space. The article is incomplete but has potential. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 00:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

lol @ your red talk page Ethanbas ^{( talk)} 01:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep – There is room for improvement, but the dynamics of the first 1—0—0 days have been breath-taking. Improvements will come about with time and tagging. – S. Rich ( talk) 22:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is a clearly notable topic that is part of the well-defined structure of Category:Public image of American politicians. There are already reliable and verifiable sources, and President Trump -- for whatever he may, or may not, accomplish -- has a rather public image that will only have more and more material for expansion of this article. Alansohn ( talk) 17:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Topic is very notable and significant, and will become even more so in the following years as with every U.S. president or other influential politicians. However, the article in its current state is poorly written and referenced, so while I don't think it should be deleted, a major expansion should be done. If not, maybe draftifying it or merging it with Donald Trump would be a better, immediate solution, but I'm not sure. κατάστασ η 19:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Of course the topic is eminently notable, which is why the abysmal lack of contents in this stub is very puzzling and disappointing, even three months after the first AfD noted the same situation. Meanwhile many minor articles related to Trump are created weekly, and the major ones still see hundreds of edits per day, so there is apparently no lack of editor motivation to write about him. This one should go to Draft space until some meaningful contents are added and structured. — JFG ^talk 20:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Userfy or WP:TNT. Notable topic, but this article doesn't even begin to scratch the surface - just the two citations, both from September 2016, for someone who's been a public figure for 20 years or so? I suspect that other possibly-interested editors wouldn't even know how to begin improving the article as it currently stands. (I haven't looked, but I have a suspicion that WP:FORK might be another issue.) Narky Blert ( talk) 23:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I have no intention of or interest in doing so, but I reckon that I could write an article several times the length of this one, fully supported by WP:RS citations, on "Public image of Donald Trump in Scotland" alone. Narky Blert ( talk) 23:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Topic is obviously notable. Userfication, drafitication, or deletion would make it harder to reach and be worked on. Tag it with {{ incomplete}}. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 14:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration since this obviously cannot be improved or expanded. Reyk _YO! 14:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete No encyclopedic worth whatsover. These low grade articles exemplify everything that's wrong at this project. Inlinetext ( talk) 16:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete the comparable page about Obama was created with much more substantial content and sourcing. This article shouldn't remain on the site unless it ca be edited to meet a similar standard. Porphyro ( talk) 23:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.