Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infrastructure policy of Donald Trump

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 keep. Missvain (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure policy of Donald Trump

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Pandering cruft, feels written like a PR piece for the current admin in some places, and if not WP:TNT'd, needs major cleanup to be encyclopedic. Wikipedia does not host WP:ESSAYS, and this is very much one.

Due to the topic at hand, reminder to all that you shouldn't make personal attacks. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. While a decent article on the topic could in theory be written, the text accumulated here is more of an impediment to that than a starting point for it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Deletion concerns appear to mostly be based on the fact that it is written like an essay despite the fact the article might be on interest. Remember that AfD is not supposed to be for cleanup. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Foxnpichu, Per the quoted WP:TNT, sometimes articles are irrecoverable junk, and it's easier to start over than salvage. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Under that theory, I suggest a Draftify. That means we can keep any information that might be worthy, and if we feel the remade article isn't good enough, well, it is just a draft. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)*[reply]

Keep. I think this article is alright. It explains without pushing for a particular point of view or another. Readers are of course encouraged to think for themselves on what to make of it. Nerd271 (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and substantially cut. I don't think it's unsalvageable and the topic is clearly notable. I would support removing ~40 percent of the overly detailed/not clearly relevant bits. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, Can you do that? The keep has a lot more weight if the changes are made. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonythedwarf, I'm doing some of it now. But I'm also not responsible for fixing the article that you've brought to AfD. See WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic it is not unsalvageable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2020 (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.