Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Executive_Order_13765 References

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. Sandstein 12:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Executive Order 13765

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

Page just copies the text of the order without providing sources as to notability Kndimov ( talk) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Why not just move it to Wikisource like we did with just about every other Executive Order (see List of United States federal executive orders 13489—13764)? -- Kndimov ( talk) 04:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep Executive orders by the President of the United States are notable. This looks like a case for cleanup, not deletion. South Nashua ( talk) 22:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

@ South Nashua: Are you saying that every executive order should get an article? Clearly some are important ( Executive Order 9066), but every one? Most are very mundane and get little coverage. This one is little more than a statement of principle. 331dot ( talk) 03:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I'd say so. Executive orders are a key part of a President's duties. At minimum, redirects for each executive order going to a page on a specific topic relating to executive orders in a particular administration. South Nashua ( talk) 03:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep: WP:SOFIXIT. Toddst1 ( talk) 22:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment Just gave it a quick rewrite. Let's avoid a snow and speedy close this one. South Nashua ( talk) 22:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment Why not just move it to Wikisource like we did with just about every other Executive Order (see List of United States federal executive orders 13489—13764)? Plus it's sill not notable. I fail to see the impact, unlike his order to withdraw from the TPP. All the article says is that the order is: "Designed to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as 'Obamacare'". An executive order cannot repeal the Affordable Care Act. If you actually read it, all it says it "please slow down implementation of Obamacare, despite the fact it has already been implemented". The rest appears to be just rhetoric designed to show the new president's resolve. -- Kndimov ( talk) 23:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment Even if some executive orders are not notable, which I don't agree with, this one in particular is the culmination of a talking point during the presidential campaign he repeated numerous times. Plenty of room for expansion beyond the verbatim words of the order itself. South Nashua ( talk) 15:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep Totally notable. Reliable sources. Article might need little cleanup and edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izukiviktor ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Who says a simple executive order is independently notable? It's WP:NOTNEWS. This is sufficiently covered by First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. – Muboshgu ( talk) 02:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep because it's almost impossible for this to not have coverage from multiple independent sources: Considering the broad scope of this executive order — probably an attempt to reverse Obamacare to the maximum extent allowed by executive branch — I'm pretty sure multiple sources can be found soon, analyzing what this executive order's effect is, and how it affects healthcare in the United States until more complete acts of Congress are passed, and possibly also how it sets the tone for the Trump administration. -- Closeapple ( talk) 02:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Move the text of the order to Wikisource; anything remaining can be merged with Donald Trump's first 100 days article, or an article about efforts to repeal the ACA. This order is little more than a statement of principle. 331dot ( talk) 03:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep - We have plenty of articles dedicated to EOs, and this is Trump's first, so clearly there is significance. Bkwillwm ( talk) 05:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources about the executive order. This is part of a rather broad structure of Category:United States executive orders by president, which includes several dozen such articles. Alansohn ( talk) 15:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. loads of news sources discuss it. If the article is more than just the text of the order, if it also includes historical context and effects, etc., that's a legitimate subject for an article. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 16:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

The substance of this order is essentially that it is a step towards repealing the ACA; I'm not sure what historical context it has, but I would think that it could be discussed as part of the ACA article, or an article detailing efforts to repeal it. 331dot ( talk) 17:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment Either list them all, or none of them. Some being more important than others is subjective and only having articles for a few is inconsistent. I like how the past two terms from Obama lists them all at Wikisource per Kndimov. -- Charitwo ^{(
talk) (
contribs)} 02:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete All Trump's executive orders will be listed in List of United States federal executive orders 13765 and above. The article has an external link leading to the text, so there's no need for separate articles if those articles only present the content of the order. In this case I think the executive order should be discussed in the article about ACA or in a separate article about the repeal of ACA. Sjö ( talk) 10:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 01:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 01:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 01:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 01:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. This article definitely needs expansion, but the executive order has received coverage from The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post, among others. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 01:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes WP:GNG. The objections of several here could be dealt with by improving the article. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Whatever replaces Obamacare will have an article. This executive order is a single step towards that replacement and by itself is insignificant. Maybe there could be an article 2017 Obamacare repealment effort if you find yourself unable to wait. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 05:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply
If and when that subject gets beyond this executive order, it may be plausible that the executive order is no longer separately notable from that subject and can be merged. But right now, all there is to the actual Obamacare changes in the current term is this. Efforts to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exist, but the only effort that has actually has the force of law so far is this executive order. -- Closeapple ( talk) 11:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply
I'll change my comment to Merge into Efforts to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act then. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep, executive orders are not inherently notable (nor are they usually), but this one seems to pass GNG. ansh 666 21:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep. Executive orders pass the GNG. 'Nuff said. Completely improper nomination given the general tendency to have individual articles for every individual EO, and that's well before we get into the fact that this one in particular recieved a boatload of media coverage which is cited in the article already. Karunamon ^✉ 02:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
I think you need to look again. Every single one of those wikilinks links to the corresponding WikiSource page. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Aha, actually I'm a little wrong. That page has a few links to Obama's EOs under the "Title/Description" column. There are around 12 EO articles in Category:Executive_orders_of_Barack_Obama. I wouldn't say 12 out of 275 is a "general tendency" at all. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Not every presidential executive order needs its own page. This one, the content can be easily assimilated into the first 100 days and PPACA page. Compare and contrast with the newsworthiness of the executive order on Muslim travel and refugees. – Muboshgu ( talk) 04:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep per above, passes WP:GNG, content can be added into other relevant articles, but there's no reason why we should not also have a separate article. - CHAMPION ^{(
talk) (
contributions) (
logs)} 05:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete – We don't need a separate article for every paper the President signs. There's a list for this, and subject matter is covered elsewhere, for example at Obamacare and First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. — JFG ^talk 09:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete / Merge to List of United States federal executive orders 13765 and above AusLondonder ( talk) 09:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Merge, ideally to Shit Donald Trump Says. Guy ( Help!) 15:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Seriously? For a guy who is apparently an administrator, that was kind of unprofessional. We are trying to have a serious discussion here, thank you. -- Kndimov ( talk) 17:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Pretty much, yes. One article on the endless series of fuckwittedness emanating from the White House is enough right now. Guy ( Help!) 22:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep - This particular Executive Order has been critiqued by numerous reliable sources, seen on these Google News articles: [1] Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep - As above. The article now references three news sources discussing the order, demonstrating notability. I can see why it was nominated, but in its current form it's downright confusing to have a deletion nomination on it. - NorsemanII ( talk) 21:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep or Merge to List of United States federal executive orders 13765 and above. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 02:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. Independently notable. — RockMFR 03:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep, Executive orders by the President of the United States are notable. It needs cleaned up more. - Kiraroshi1976 ( talk) 06:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep clearly meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep, of course. --- Another Believer _(
Talk) 18:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep - improper use of WP article delete procedure. This process is for identifying topics that *should not* be articles in WP. It is not meant for poorly written articles, which should be listed at WP:CLEANUP, not here. Davodd ( talk) 06:07, 31 January 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.