Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAGAkids incident


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

MAGAkids incident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * This page may now be at 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This page may now be at 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Already covered at Indigenous Peoples March. There is no actual incident here, see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DELAY. Completely routine he said-she said, except there isn't any crime alleged. One could make the argument that it's noteworthy that tabloids printed garbage coverage of the event, but that's also completely typical and WP:ROUTINE. Notice how that policy includes "tabloid journalism". Also, since all of these "opinion" articles at respectable outlets were published solely for profit, they should be discounted here. I think everyone can agree here that this is just another Trump-related news cycle with zero lasting impact on anything. There might even be in-depth coverage from people who have been respected in the past, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't wait for WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, of which there likely won't be any. Note that countless Trump-related "incidents" were deleted in the past, and a couple were similarly related to insignificant school kids. w umbolo  ^^^  18:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Week keep, minimum merge Granted, we should have waited to create this, but we're 5 days out and the story is still drawing significant headlines. It's a two-part story, one about the event, and the other about how the media are reacting to the event, with both stories feeding themselves back and forth (eg just now criticism related to a interview with the spotlighted student causing more media stirring). I do think that some of the reactions can be cut down (I edited some of this yesterday to try to add objective event pinpoints to help guide how the reaction section should be driven) -there's still tons of reactions, everyone's brother having their word towards it, and we shoudln't have these all. But that should wait until after the event has died out from headline news, so we can figure the right perspective. Also I would argue that the headline is not POV compliant (even if that's common phrasing by reporting), it should be something like "2019 Indigenous Peoples March event", and potentially considered merged back to the March page if this ends up short enough. --M asem  (t) 18:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge for now, decide if it needs its own article later. Also, I've renamed it to 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident for now, since the previous name was chosen with no discussion, doesn't seem to appear in any sources, failed WP:NPOV (it appears to be a hashtag some people are trying to push, but not one that has gotten enough coverage to even be mentioned in mainstream sources, let alone reaching WP:COMMONNAME.  Strong delete for anything under the old title - that name refers to a non-notable hashtag, and we clearly lack the sources to write an article about the hashtag, nor is there any reason to think they'll ever exist. --Aquillion (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. While the article name could be up for discussion, a bright light is not needed to see that this is an event of the highest iconicity. One wonders how the nominator could in a case this rare even think of WP:ROUTINE, let alone wanting the subject to get only some attention in an article on a subject to which it is only related by coincidence. This nomination does not convince me, on the contrary: I get the impression of someone wanting to silence a subject for no reason but personal unease. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC).
 * please don't speculate on the motivations of other editors. Comments on AFDs should be limited to policy-based arguments on the article, not other editors. See WP:AFDEQ and WP:DISCUSSAFD. clpo13(talk) 19:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I get the point, and thank you for that, but please notice that nominator sets the standard with "I think everyone can agree here", which is no less speculation than me giving my impression. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC).


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, but reevaluate later. While WP:ROUTINE does state tabloid journalism isn't considered noteworthy, I will have to disagree with you that this incident will be treated as a fad and that this is not simply "tabloid journalism", though I do think caution should be exercised when editing this article. None of us can conclusively claim this incident will have zero lasting impact when the media is still actively reporting on this.  WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE clearly states these events " may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable."  Unlike other Trump-related incidents, this one seems unique in the fallout that has occurred, especially in regards to the threats of bodily harm and even death directed at children by celebrities.  Neither do I believe this incident should simply be redirected to Indigenous Peoples March.  At the very least, the incident should be considered a case study in sensationalism, but we should wait for the dust to settle before pushing to have this article deleted. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment / Keep – I think the above option is better, but I have no prejudice against a merge. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  23:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I have since revised my initial opinion on this matter and believe this incident is deserving of its own article. The fact is this event happened when three separate groups - March for Life, Indigenous Peoples March, and the Black Israelite group - all came together and this incident occurred.  To say this event should be merged as a subset of the Indigenous Peoples March page to me goes against WP:UNDUE because it would downplay this event's notability.  Most people's interest in this matter seems to comes from the incident itself, not that it occurred in conjunction with the Indigenous Peoples March. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - Current events are always a tough call, and there's good-faith disagreement over how NOTNEWS should be applied. In this case, noteworthiness doesn't depend on tabloid coverage; the incident has received substantial, international, non-opinion reporting and analysis from respected mainstream sources. Since editors seem interested in writing about the topic, we can use this as an opportunity to build an article. –dlthewave ☎ 20:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - as Masem best described in their !vote above this event is still attracting a fair share of coverage and is still very much a current event, so it is simply too soon to say, although I must say that I think this article at the moment still passes the notability guidelines described in WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. As other !votes have stated above (if the article is kept) I would not be opposed to a future discussion to merge in a month or two time. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge back to Indigenous Peoples March for now. This is a controversy that erupted at that event, the Native American / indigenous context is important, and I think it would be well-covered there.  I also think we might consider a more general article on viral videos of this type that show people with Trump symbols apparently behaving in bigoted ways - the bullying of Latino/a students to "Build the Wall" in late 2016 comes to mind.--Pharos (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "... viral videos of this type that show people [kids] with Trump symbols apparently behaving in bigoted ways" — with a bias like this I suggest you stay away from this subject. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC).
 * I actually spent quite a bit of time yesterday trying to guess which bias you assumed I had, though with your other edits I think I know now. I think our language difference might be a partial cause - "people" does not mean adults and "apparently" means by appearance, not necessarily in fact.  My point was that this is more or less a genre of viral video now, whether warranted or not in any individual instance.  This is why we have WP:AGF, which you seem to be ignoring quite regularly on this page.--Pharos (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * After seeing the first footage that emerged, to me it was clear that those kids were being kids, dancing to an approaching drum. Their outfit to me was irrelevant. You approach the subject from the Trump symbol side, which to me is secondary. Your first opinion, apparently, is that the group appeared to behave in a bigoted way, something which never came to my mind. Maybe my reply was too strong, but I think it would be fair to also Assume Good Faith on the schoolboys' behaviour to start with, which you obviously could not. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC).


 * Comment Before the edit conflict I was saying “MAGAkids” is a ridiculous title. They are Covington Catholic school students. If anything it should be renamed and merged. Trillfendi (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the article has already been moved to a new title, its just that the article was nominated for deletion under the old title hence the reason why the old title is the one that shows up in the nomination page. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep -- "Already mentioned briefly at another article" is not a good reason to delete a lengthy and well sourced article on a notable-in-itself topic. As the guy who boldly forked the article from Indigenous Peoples March in the first place, I did so based on attempts to discuss on the talk page first and also based on the fact that the crux of the incident did not actually occur during the IPM or in conjunction with the IPM. I think the topic is clearly notable based on mainstream media coverage (19 million ghits for Covington Catholic Incident), and I think its notability derives from the clash and subsequent culture war implications rather than from the Indigenous Peoples March. The event is "already covered" not only by the Indigenous People's March, but also by the March for Life, Covington Catholic High School, Black Hebrew Israelites, and other wikipedia articles. The IPM article was bloated with incident specific details / reactions unrelated to the planning and conduct of the Indigenous People's March. Merging to any one of these articles (Indigenous People's March, March for Life, Covington Catholic High School, or Black Hebrew Israelites) would bloat it up with incident specific details and media interpretations at the expense of otherwise distinct and clear articles. This is a textbook Recentism editor disagreement, since some people think it is obviously notable and others think it is a news blip. In any case, it is incontrovertably attracting a lot of buzz on we won't know whether it will stick... but in the mean time there is a lot of reliable source coverage trying to dissect what exactly happened -- something that Wikipedia is extremely good at assimilating. Again, refer to WP:RECENT for some thoughts on what to do in this case. I am not committed to the name, but I could not think of a better one that maintained WP:NPOV.   Peace and WikiLove, MPS (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Main stream coverage is continuing with further interviews, responses and in-depth analyses. It is notable and has had significant coverage evidenced in the 49 full RS references with heavy use of inline citations in this article. I had created the Indigenous Peoples March article and the section entitled "Incident" which was copied and pasted to begin this article. The March itself is notable, although media coverage of it was lamentably lacking. I could see with the amount of coverage the incident was getting, both via social media and in the main stream press, that this section would have to eventually be forked. A January 20, 2019 New York Times article described the incident as an "explosive convergence of race, religion and ideological beliefs — against a national backdrop of political tension... The encounter became the latest touch point for racial and political tensions in America], with diverging views about what really had happened." Major news outlets continue to publishing series of articles and news broadcasts investigating angles of the story in terms of the role of social media itself, cultural intersections, US political polarization, etc. Social media is still alight with it. The use of Storyful and other social media intelligence agencies is in itself an interesting aspect of this story. I strongly oppose the original title MAGA kids as it is biased and disrespectful. If the decision is made to delete this article, I strongly recommend that the content be merged back into the Indigenous Peoples March.Oceanflynn (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment So it sounds like Oceanflynn, the creator of the Indiginous Peoples Day article, is agreeing that the "incident" article is also separately notable, and I, the creator of the forked MAGAkids article, agree that the name is not great (it was not even my first choice, but I was trying to keep participants' proper names out of it so as to maintain NPOV. As I said above "I am not committed to the name" but I think the topic is notable whatever we decide to call it. Peace, MPS (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Keep or merge - Keep or merge the article, but do not delete the history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge It does not seem notable enough to have its own article; Frankly, I'd opine it wasn't even notable enough to be mentioned on current events. However, given the coverage, it merits a mention on a parent article. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge back to Indigenous Peoples March for now because the article on the Indigenous Peoples March only covers this one day event and the vast majority of the media coverage for the march covered or mentioned this incident. This incident seems to provide a large part of that article's notability at this point. This new page seems to be largely a duplication of an existing article. The existing ariticle is not large at this point so seems no justification in splitting it at this point. DynaGirl (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge back to parent article. Yes, mainstream media is still covering this, but that does not always mean it is notable. Also, there has been much hearsay, lies, and confusion in the coverage of this story.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The hearsay, the lies and the confusion make up this story and it is pretty much what makes the story notable. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC).
 * That is true, but was it notable enough to be it's own page? I think it would be fine merged. Of course, I'm not an admin.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It probably partly depends on the final name for the AIM Song MAGA Drum Encounter and the description of occurences, but I think the event will retain significance as an example of American culture. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC).


 * Keep - Incident has received attention world wide. And sparkee discussions. Article sourced and the sources are good. I see no point in merging this as it contains info that is not available at the other article. This is whether we like it or not an event that has reached international level.BabbaQ (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Worldwide attention, ongoing analysis in mainstream sources. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, but this is not routine news, but a singular event which has provoked significant thought and controversy among a very wide range of people.  If you were to write a special issue of a magazine, "The USA in 2019," this would merit a mention (at least, if 2019 is like 2018).  Be ⊢ Critical  08:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, it was blown up out of all proportion, but that's what makes it notable. Of considerable cultural importance: "The Covington Catholic fight is American politics in microcosm," etc. StAnselm (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This has ongoing international coverage, and the current article is helpful for understanding the context and participants. From an international perspective, 'MAGA teens incident' would have been a useful title, but the article does come up on the search for articles containing those words. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep we have two events here, the initial reaction and the media backpedaling. All well sourced.--v/r - TP 12:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Relevant. WesSirius (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This news story exploded nationally and even internationally. There is no way this does not merit its own article under the notability guidelines. I think it's likely that this topic will be brought up and discussed for years to come. If anything, the Indigenous Peoples March article should be merged into this one, not the other way around. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, at any rate the nomination isn't very convincing. The nominator cites WP:NOTNEWS, and all NOTNEWS has to say about this situation is "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of... events". And it also says "Editors are encouraged to... develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". I'd say that this event is something that some non-zero number of people are going to want to look at even decades from now. Probably. I mean people delving into the social history of these times, as well as other people. It's not like the article is about a pileup on I-95. So NOTNEWS encourages us to create articles like this, and it's kind of odd to cite it as a reason to delete. As to WP:DELAY, that's just a guideline, a guideline with which I don't agree for various reasons, besides which WP:RAPID right below is titled "Don't rush to delete articles" and opens with "Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge". So overall this is not a very convincing nomination. I'm not voting on the issue since I haven't examined the article, just making this one point. Herostratus (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep for now: I haven't read or even clicked on the article so I have no idea if the content of the article is worth keeping or needs a total overhaul.  However, I agree with those who say there has been enough coverage talking about the initial coverage and public reaction to pass NOTE.  I don't think merging into the 2019 IPM makes sense because, let's be honest, this incident is what's getting coverage, not the rest of the march.  I suspect the article title should be considered since it could be considered biased and I'm not sure there is a COMMON name for it.  Edit: Having just clicked the link, I don't think the current title works since the incident involved 3 groups (the students, the IPM and the BHI's).    Springee (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per MPS. There is no clear merge target as the article says this occurred after the two marches. 93 (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. No convincing argument to delete. I really don’t get why I should care whether it is kept or merged. What’s the benefit of either against the other? Doesn’t seem important. 71.167.14.104 (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Solid Keep, do not merge I am in Europe and almost every major European newspaper and television news networks have covered this as an event (e.g. not as part of something else, but as a moment in itself .... hence, don't merge). If that is not WP:GNG, what is? Britishfinance (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Continued coverage in US and international media. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, but this has enduring notability.  (Heroeswithmetaphors)   talk  20:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. IMHO it is entirely silly this kerfuffle got hyped up to being with. However, coverage by WaPo, NYT, BBC, and the like is not tabloid journalism - and has been on-going through today (initially siding one way, then waffling the other way once the initial coverage came out as biased). It actually is quite possible that this will have a lasting effect due to the very wide misreporting when this broke. At present - given the very wide national and international coverage - we are in a WP:RAPID situation and should keep. Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think that merging Nathan Phillips (activist) to this article has merit - but best to discuss that after the AfD. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- 10 days later and new developments keep coming. This is the most notable social media event in the US this year so far. Kire1975 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is a major news event within a period of intense social and racial division in the United States, with many different perspectives concerning the amount of blame the individual parties shared during the incident. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep rather than merge - The indigenous march article is actually much less important than this incident. From what I've read and seen, that March was over before this occurred. Little of the coverage mentions the March, except to explain why Phillips and his companions were nearby at in the first place. Mattnad (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mattnad above. Tom Harrison Talk 22:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as it has a lot of significant media coverage. Also, this has been shown to be a prime example of the unreliability of viral videos and news stories commenting on them by various publications and therefore may have an impact on journalism itself. MikeOwen  discuss  18:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.