Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Melania

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. Sigh ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free Melania[edit]

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

Useless trivia/gossip. Not encyclopedic in the least. — JFG ^talk 09:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment/Pending~~ Weak Keep - so I needlessly spent 15 minutes checking notability/sigcov before realising that that wasn't the deletion basis being used by Nom. I'm tempted to say that it isn't either trivia or gossip. The latter is that the cause of the movement may or may not have been created from gossip, but is a full discussed meme/concept, by actual news articles over a reasonable length of time. It isn't trivia given the level of coverage with reasoned analysis on it and any relation of free melania on Trump. I feel that trivia/gossip basis for deletion must be fairly clear.

This leads to why I am pending rather than going keep - nom is correct to point out these grounds for the article as it stands - it reads as gossip and wouldn't appear to add anything. There is easily available data that goes far beyond ceasing to be trivia/gossip - but this article hasn't yet done so. Normally I would be tempted to argue that WP:COMPLETE should mean it remains, but with regards to an article primarily about a living person, I feel a good case can be made for improvement being necessary to remain. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending additional detail to be added to clarify as non-trivial/gossip, I feel weak keep is the correct position. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- its clearly a cultural meme, supported by the source material. Sadads (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (article creator) per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to an appropriate section of Protests against Donald Trump.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging only really makes sense if it couldn't satisfy notability, which it can. That it is a protest against Trump doesn't mean it should go under. If it is too trivial/gossipy then it doesn't belong in wiki at all.Nosebagbear (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Should this be notable? No. Is this notable? Yes, by dint of repeated and lasting media coverage. It seems that in issues related to Trump, coverage turns the trivial into notable leading us to Trumpedia - so unless some adds an appropriate clause to WP:NOT (e.g. silly trivia related to the sitting US president is not notable until LASTING is established by coverage persisting 2 years after this term) - it merits an article.Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2018 (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.