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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 17:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Free Speech rally[edit]

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

Could be a case of WP:TOOSOON as the rally is still in progress. Standalone notability may be difficult to establish and it might be an idea to redirect it to Unite the Right rally. DrStrauss talk 14:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now -- This nomination is too soon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Too soon to tell.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has made BBC News in the UK; ergo it meets the threshold of notability for me. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too soon to tell – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 20:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy incubate and salt until 2 Sep 2017 Also, move the article to a generic name in draftspace, such as "Rally in Boston on 19 August 2017". Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the article states that the event took place today. A look at the sources shows dates from before today. There is a source from CBSNEWS described as "live updates". Its not clear at this point that people in ten years will remember or care about this event. The title of this article itself is WP:OR, as there has not been time for the world at large to decide on a name, and there is risk that Wikipedia is now involved in the naming of this event. Unscintillating (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe rename reactions to Boston Free Speech rally as it seems the counter-protesting is getting all the press. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rally over now. Nothing significant happened. Also WP:NOTNEWS Rossbawse (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of consequence here. A line or two in appropriate articles such as Unite the Right rally, to which this was an addendum. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Merge any relevant information to Unite the Right rally and redirect to that article. It is also worth noting that a similar rally happened in Berlin today, so perhaps there should be a subsection that briefly discusses these events. This is Paul (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Protest event covered by numerous reliable sources. None of the 4 criteria at WP:NOTNEWS is applicable, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" this is not. TheValeyard (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To suggest "nothing significant happened" is astonishing. I've seen this reported in UK newspapers as a crowd of 15,000! RustlingLeaves (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And U.S. ABC evening news reports the number at 40,000. We have no deadline. We follow the sources. Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the rally itself was not notable but the counter protest was. The mayor estimated that 40,000 ppl participated -- a march does not need to be deadly or violent to be significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Eeesh. We're not talking a monster truck rally. We're talking an event that made the international newswires, and part and parcel of an ongoing saga with a measurable and heavily cited effect on the United States government. To suggest that it's "nothing of consequence" is so very far off the mark that I've a hard time coming up with ways to describe it that conform to Wikipedia civility policies. Ravenswing 01:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The counter-protest seems to be the largest anti-Trump protest since the Women's March.--GeicoHen (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep with no prejudice against re-nomination in 2 weeks time. These "breaking news" articles are generally never deleted immediately, even if they are clearly nothing burgers later. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For now at least. I cannot see the likelihood of establishing a long-term impact but the event is still new and I can be proven wrong.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of consequence here. A line or two in appropriate articles such as Unite the Right rally, to which this was an addendum.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Size and presidential comment leads me to think that this was a watershed event. It's far more irritating that we have these fast deletion challenges of breaking events than we have the articles about the events themselves. Carrite (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't care what the title ends up being, but it is too widely attended and too widely reported not to receive coverage on Wikipedia. Merging it with Unite the Right rally would propagate an utter falsehood as this event was not held by Nazis. Connor Behan (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A question to those voting "keep for now", does not policy dictate that we should only keep articles once notability has been established?Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And with this morning's news, a glimpse of what history might see is that this was the largest of many protests across the U.S on 19 August 2017. We don't have a sense yet what history will call these events. Why is this article still in mainspace? This article is yet another example of why we need a "CSD" for speedy incubate. Unscintillating (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Indeed, history might turn out to call these events something different. In which case we (drumroll here ...) change the name of the article. This is scarcely an onerous or challenging task. And why is this article still in mainspace? Obviously because the overwhelming consensus is against your POV that this is a NN subject. Ravenswing 19:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: I don't have a POV per se, I don't think protests are NN in general at all. DrStrauss talk 22:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does "overwhelming consensus" (which is far from the case here anyway) override a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow"? That is up to the closer to decide, and since most keep !votes to this point have disregarded the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" policy, the closer has good reason to take this article out of main space. The one !voter who mentioned the related WP:NOTNEWS misquoted the policy, identifying examples as criteria. The damage will continue as long as a mainspace article that is really a draft is copied out to the Wikipedia mirrors while this AfD languishes. Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, overwhelming consensus does not override a standard. What overwhelming consensus does do is assert that the standards have not been overridden, and that neither you nor any other Delete proponent have made your case as to the purported "damage" this article would inflict on the encyclopedia. That you don't care for the outcome is as may be, but the definition of whether a guideline is met or not doesn't hinge on your personal approval any more than it does on mine. Ravenswing 01:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't !vote to delete, and my !vote is not based on a guideline. And the point is improving the encyclopedia going forward, whether or not you are on board with improving the encyclopedia going forward. Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite the fact that I contributed an image, this is an excellent example of the appropriateness of embargoing breaking-news stuff for a while. A month from now it this debate will be much more clear-cut. E Eng 00:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lol (that means keep in case it wasn't obvious) Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: cheers :P DrStrauss talk 17:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This generated a big response from officials, 40,000 people counter-protesting isn't normal for Boston. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:08, 23 August 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.