Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monday Night Massacre

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 Snow keep. Overwhelming consensus that topic is notable. A few commenters suggested that the article could at some point be merged with other articles, and the nomination itself was on the basis that the content strongly overlaps other articles. However, merging can be done at any time through a normal merge discussion. The only delete !vote missed the traditional use of "massacre" in US politics, such as Saturday Night Massacre mentioned by Tlhslobus. 50.0.136.56 (talk)

Monday Night Massacre[edit]

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

Not notable. All relevant info can be found in the articles Sally Yates and Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States". Surachit (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For now, it's notable and covers more than just Sally Yates, such as the ICE director dismissal. This may change over the next few days. Disappointed you didn't even try to discuss it on the talk page and just slapped the AfD tag on it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Fuzheado's comments.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 06:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion on the article's talk page. Plenty of sources, and I'm normally very cautious on such scandals. Even if one objects to the name, the scandal is noteworthy. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now - It could grow into something larger with a lot more firings, and the name has been used a lot in media and the article is well sourced. If it doesn't in a while, we can merge the article with another article. --Puget Sound (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. Buggie111 (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can understand the potential recentism with the firing and the sensational title may raise some concerns, but the incident has raised high-profile, international awareness (whether you'd like that or not, we're not to decide what media covers). I would urge a keep and possibly a title change if the name "Monday Night Massacre" bothers people so much. --AsianHippie (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced and reflects a notable event that needs an entry on the encyclopedia. Agree with discussion on Talk page. VERY unhappy with AfD tagging. It reflects VERY poorly on Wikipedia this is even happening. It reinforces perception and reality that AfD systemically is badly done. I am proud this article exists. BrillLyle (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The title is too sensational and this event is currently more relevant to the news than to an encyclopedia. A "massacre" also involves the indiscriminate killing of a large number of people; this event involves the firing of one person, and not for an indiscriminate reason. CMD1992 (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also delete Saturday Night Massacre - after all, that only involved the firing of 3 people? Tlhslobus (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is likely to be viewed as a significant event for a long time. If another president had done something like this in the manner Trump did it (besides Nixon of course), it would be in the history books (and Wikipedia) for sure. What's surprising is the rhetoric the White house used saying it was a "betrayal," very strong language. Ashvio (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above keeps, and suggest a WP:SNOW close asap. Jus da fax 08:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - ~~as far as I can tell, nom didn't even give a reason why this should be deleted.~~ Meets GNG per current event that is sure to have lasting notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody moved the nominator's rationale. Dustin (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the Nom's comment back at the top. Hopefully I haven't broken any rules by doing it, but if I have - WP:IAR. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - no rules violated; it's much appreciated. I thought it was odd there were no reasons listed! —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per points from BrillLyle -- Inploded (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Fuzheado's comments. M.Karelin (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you want a page merged into another page, you're supposed to start a Merger discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above arguments. --Malanoqa (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per most of the above arguments, and per WP:SNOW. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:01, 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.