Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest

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. WP:SNOW. Merging and other editorial concerns can be addressed on the article talk pages. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, and because the topic is better covered by a larger scoped article, such as Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, which duplicates this content. This article came first, so there are WP:CWW implications here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major even in 2016 Presidental election. Notability validated by massive coverage, including ongoing Monday morning quarterback analysis by pretty much ever political pundit in the country (not to mention newspaper coverage in Antarctica and on the North Pole.) National political polls have already come out evaluating the impact on the Republican primary electorate. WP:NOTNEWS is meant to exclude article on routine, local and minor news events. WP:SNOWBALL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this has already been discussed here. Too early to discuss again. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that having both this article and Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, seems gratuitous, and the early creation of the Chicago article may have fell afoul of the guideline not to "rush to create articles" (WP:BREAKING). But a few points: 1) Despite comments to this effect in the AfD for Protests of the Donald Trump campaign, there doesn't actually seem to be too much overlap in the real content of the two articles, and there does on the contrary seem to be enough material for a detailed run-through of the Chicago event, which would be a distraction on the wider page. 2) The Chicago protest does also seem to be individually notable above and beyond the wider theme of protests in the Donald Trump campaign. WP:EVENTCRIT states, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". The Chicago protests were covered internationally (e.g.: BBC; Swissinfo; Asahi Shinbun), and have also been the subject of specific continued re-analysis ("In Defense of Trump's Chicago Protesters" from today; "Liberal protesters didn't stop Donald Trump in Chicago. They helped him.", likewise today). —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both this article and the Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 for the above stated reasons. Buffaboy ^talk 20:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, this has received significant coverage. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Technically, the subject of the article has been widely covered, but a single article covering all of the past and future protests will keep the information in the proper context (Trump's campaign). I would probably have a different view if (God forbid) someone were seriously hurt or if it escalated beyond pushing and shoving.- Mr X 20:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mr. X and my own statements on the previous merge discussion, which are basically exactly the same as above.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, because this material is notable, but maybe not notable by itself. epicgenius (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia's licensing frowns on copying content from one article page to create the backbone for another article. Direct copying , which it was for Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, should not be done. 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest was more spontaneous. Before we start advocating for the changes suggested here, lets be sure that we are building on a solid platform, one that wasn't built without adherence to Wikipedia's page history functionality which would list all edits made to a page and all the users who made those changes. Let's not save the one with a copyright issue. Merging into Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 inspite of this diff makes more sense as long as the history problem is resolved somehow. Any suggestion? Buster Seven Talk 23:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to think that we should KEEP this as a separate article, because the event has sufficient notability in its own right.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a major event in the national press. My mother texted me from Memphis to see if I was O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh. True, this protest/rally cancellation has been covered as a major national event.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - the other article Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 is currently mostly a repeat of this content, but it may be fleshed out more. If merged, a split may then be justified. -- Callinus (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Notable enough to stand alone. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps a misunderstanding of WP:NOTNEWS? This was not a routine news announcement. I think the nominator has confused an article based entirely on news sources as a reason for deletion. Anyway, there are numerous reliable sources for this event. A merge discussion with the wider protest article should probably be treated separately. Considering that this is larger than the so-called "main article", I don't think a merge request would be successful at the moment anyway. Jolly Ω Janner 07:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As those black guys said at the rally, "we gon' be alright" Ellomate _{(questions? talk/consult my lawyer)} 13:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:EVENTCRIT. Only likely to fade into the larger article if many more protests are on this scale, but that is crystal-ball gazing at this point.--Carwil (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2016 (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.