Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReleaseTheMemo

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn as there's not a WP:SNOW chance of any outcome other than keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ReleaseTheMemo[edit]

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

This is a bunch of partisan warfare taking place in partisan media about what is currently a giant nothingburger. Wikipedia shouldn't be part of a 1984-esque social media echo chamber. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an interesting phenomenon, because it's a giant nothingburger. No shortage of reliable sources. zzz (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References seem to back up notability, especially around alleged Overseas involvement in US politics. Social media nothingburgers are part of world politics for good or ill. Mattyjohn (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepClearly meets WP:N. This is the type of article WP should be documenting and providing the reader information about.Casprings (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It may be a partisan movement and the way some congressmen who have the seen the memo describe it, its far from a nothingburger. But we're not trying to make a judgement about whether the memo itself contains anything important (how can we since we haven't seen it). The article is not about whether the memo contains any important information but about a movement that happens to be partisan (but so are a lot of movements) to get the memo released.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as eminently notable. — Jeff G. ツ 02:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - certainly trendy, but well-referenced and independent enough of the Russian interference stuff to have its own article. Easily meets WP:GNG, and I don't see other policy-based reasons to remove it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually I see no policy reason to delete this it is well sourced, notable and factual and appears to pass all NOTS. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obvious keeper. Mdmadden (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost all political slogans have a partisan slant; just because a topic is partisan doesn't mean that it isn't notable or that it can't be written about from a NPOV. I'd compare this to Pizzagate, both are explicitly partisan conspiracy theories, yet both are notable enough to warrant a WP entry. Nanophosis (talk) 17:55, 29 January 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.