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. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 03:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement

Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I considered seeking a merge on this, but that would leave a redirect and this is not a plausible search term. The memorandum is not by itself notable. It is part of the story of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, and may be mentioned on other pages too. It doesn't meet the standards for its own per WP:NOTNEWS. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Question: How is the memorandum not notable? A quick search shows dozens of news stories with significant coverage of it from reliable sources like Washington Post, ABC news, Seoul Times, NHK World News, New Delhi Television ... easily passing WP:GNG. Did you want to put forth a proposal to rename instead? Toddst1 ( talk) 19:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Per WP:NOTNEWS. I forgot to add that policy in my comments, so I've added it now. What's notable is the TPP and First 100 days, of which this is but a small part. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I really don't know, but here's what I'm considering: This is a tough one, I think. On one hand, it may meet GNG as it has received significant coverage from all kinds of reliable sources, and to that end I think it probably has a case to be included. Muboshgu is right, though, that NOTNEWS might also apply. For one, it's a terribly long title. Would "United States withdrawal from Trans Pacific Partnership" work? Then it could also include the United States' previous debate/information? In that case, I think we could get past the NOTNEWS consideration. Anyway, I guess I would lean towards a weak keep, but it's weak at that. Go Phightins ! 15:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete The document is not notable; the president's action is noteworthy and covered appropriately at Trans-Pacific Partnership. Executive Orders (and I've worked on a few) are only notable in themselves as documents when the precise language and provisions are significant. That's not the case here. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete – We don't need an article for every paper the President signs… Topic is addressed at the TPP article. — JFG ^talk 17:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is no substance to this article, and there never will be. It's easier to just have a one-line mention on the TPP page that Trump signed a memorandum withdrawing from the Partnership. Primefac ( talk) 14:16, 30 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.