Talk:Donald L. Trump

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 April 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Medicine: Hematology-oncology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Virginia Start‑class Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

No Relationship with President Donald Trump

Donald L. Trump (Donald Lynn "Skip" Trump), which this article is about, is notable in his very own right.
Having a full chapter called "Relationship with President Donald Trump", taking up about ~40% of the entire article, just to meticulously describe details of not being related to Donald J. Trump, is WP:UNDUE.
The lack of relationship, and a few details to that aspect, is therefore appropriate in ending the article's lead.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The argument is sound, but the execution suggests otherwise. In its current form I have to agree with Mojo Hand that "it was better before". Specifically, the more pithy "He is not related to U.S. president Donald Trump" that used to be there seems far more appropriate for the lead; the current small "embedded footnote" seems especially out of place. The section that was removed was well referenced and clearly relevant - perhaps a better way to reduce it from 40% of the article would be to expand the other 60. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The more pithy "He is not related to U.S. president Donald Trump" that used to be there, still is there. The section which was removed was well referenced and clearly relevant, and has mostly been kept, except now boiled down to only two lines of text. -- DexterPointy (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree with Dorsetonian. The small "embedded footnote" is weird and not standard. Neutrality^talk 00:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, to be clear, the embedded footnote is not my only concern - I think that the recent editing is not constructive overall - information should not be randomly removed to the body to the lead. Neutrality^talk 15:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed As per concensus - the "weird" small font is now ordinary -- DexterPointy (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, your solution to the problem you were trying to fix (undue weight) was far worse: the lead - the most important part of the article - was overpowered by it. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I appreciate the stated concern regarding undue weight. However, (and generally agreeing with Dorsetonian) the previous paragraph would be fine in a well developed article about this person - and there is no deadline. Moreover, the lead is only supposed to cover the main points of the article, so it's not really appropriate to have content only covered in the lead.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you create a copy into user or draft space, and edit that to show how you suggest the undue weight problem be resolved?
That would be a way for all of us here to collaborate there, leaving the article in mainspace free of intermediate unstable strange revisions during the work. -- DexterPointy (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Continuing to roll back to the May.2018 version isn't really helping.
If you're all so damned unhappy about the version which stood from 10.Jul.2018 to 17.Jul.2018, then why don't you come up with an actual constructive write-up to show how it would be better, instead of just saying that it was better before, or making statements for Santa Claus to pick up on. -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're frustrated, but this isn't really how Wikipedia works. You made a bold change that was disputed - the burden is on you to propose something else or build consensus for the language you prefer. See WP:BRD.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be lovely if you read WP:BRD -- DexterPointy (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]