Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax Day March


 * 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 no consensus. Opinions are divided between moving to draftspace or keeping because of the already-existing media coverage.  Sandstein  09:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Tax Day March

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX to advertise planned protests. We should write about such events after they actually happen, and in proportion to the RS coverage they get. Similar to the decision in the Scientists' March case, I suggest moving this article to Draft space until it takes place. In the meantime, a couple lines in Protests against Donald Trump, as it stands today, are enough in terms of encyclopedic coverage. — JFG talk 09:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect mainspace link and Move article to Draft: No doubt this will get a lot of media coverage when it happens, but we shouldn't have an article about it till then. This is Paul (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plans for the event had received widespread coverage.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 19:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no reason to wait until this event takes place. This is not rumour or speculation&mdash;the event already has already received substantial coverage in mainstream media, as is evidenced by the sources given within the article. Brad  v  03:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. This is pure political advertising for an event that may or may not become notable.Glendoremus (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to draft. After the date for the scientists' march was chosen, every vote cast for that article was keep. And yet it still ended up as a draft. So this time, I'll just vote for that outcome right away. Connor Behan (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Date has been announced and this protest has gained quite a bit of press coverage, with tens of thousands of people participating. When an event is large enough it makes sense to have an article about it before it happens. Plantlady223 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Move article to draft as suggested. This article is about an event that (according to the article) is not certain to occur. It also fails other tests in the policy about what Wikipedia is not, for example, Wikipedia is not a political soapbox and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are plenty of other articles about Protests against Donald Trump where this content could be recorded, and I don't yet see the need for a standalone article. Given that the protest is not certain to occur, it has not yet met the notability criteria for an event. Gfcvoice (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CRYSTAL contrary to Gfcvoice. We do not know that this event will not occur, but if it does not occur as planned, it still cannot be denied that this would belong in the series of "Protests against Donald Trump" (The statement "there are plenty of other articles about Protests against Donald Trump" is not an argument; if anything, to point out how there is a large number of articles on the subject would support the idea that it is acceptable to create an additional article on the subject) as it would remain a significant attempt at organized opposition. Even unsuccessful protests, movements, marches, coups, and riots have their place in history; even a footnote has notability. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – meets WP:GNG.  CookieMonster755   𝚨-𝛀    02:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * GNG coverage does not automatically mean this should have a standalone article, which is doomed to remain a stub until April. A few lines in the main article are sufficient and representative of the balance in sources. — JFG talk 10:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per the rationales of and  above. The topic continues to receive coverage, such as this article that was published on the same day that this deletion nomination was initiated (February 5). North America1000 06:43, 13 February 2017 (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.