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 redirect to Protests against Donald Trump. The headcount provides an almost even three-way split of delete, merge and keep opinions. As to the arguments, the "delete" and "merge" side points out the significant overlap with articles such as Protests against Donald Trump, 2017 Women's March, Inauguration of Donald Trump#Protests and List of 2017 Women's March locations. In the light of Wikipedia policy and practice, notably WP:CFORK, which instructs us to avoid creating content forks (that is, covering the same topic in different articles), I find these arguments to be stronger than those advanced by the "keep" side, which mostly amount to "it's useful", "it's notable" or "it's important", which may well be true but do not address the content-forking arguments. Taking this into consideration, I do not find consensus for outright deletion, but rather consensus to find an editorial solution by redirecting and (selectively) merging (as editors may deem appropriate) to avoid content duplication except as required by summary style. Given the strong policy-based arguments not to maintain the current list in main space, I am not merely slapping a "merge" tag on the list but redirecting it to the most frequently mentioned target, Protests against Donald Trump. Any merger that editors may agree on can occur from the article's history, and the redirect target can also be changed as deemed appropriate. Sandstein 08:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inauguration of Donald Trump protests[edit]

Article was renamed to Donald Trump inauguration protests.

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

Useless listcruft, no point in keeping this, if there are any notable protests, the content should be merged into one of the already many articles. - CHAMPION ^{(talk(contributions) (logs)} 00:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Delete - Nothing memorable or encyclopedic, unless one wishes to record the two police hospitalized and the other four injured policemen. XavierItzm (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @XavierItzm: You have misplaced the comment, I have just corrected this. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump#Inauguration protests or Inauguration of Donald Trump#Planned demonstrations and boycotts take your pick. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful list, but I agree it needs significant cleanup and sourcing improvement. MB298 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak keep - Definitely needs cleanup and improvement, but the main Protests against Donald Trump article has grown unmanageably long, despite a talk page consensus to shorten it. Funcrunch (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just glanced at Protests against Donald Trump and it's actually not really that large, unless we're catering to the typical non-existent attention span. Compare it to Political positions of Hillary Clinton, well over twice the size of that article, where concerns about shortening it have consistently fallen on deaf ears. In general, putting this much emphasis on "whatever's in the news today = what's notable about the world" at the expense of the big picture of human knowledge only validates my ongoing WP:NOTNEWS concerns. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone wishes to rewrite it as a prose article. It won't be me, as the amount of coverage we've already given to a Trump presidency which only started today is absolutely ridiculous when compared to the countless notable events that we don't acknowledge whatsoever or only provide trivial coverage and for which an abundance of sources have long existed. Read: what finer points of "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" are y'all disputing by engaging in all this activity? In addition to WP:NOTNEWS, the content I'm looking at right now also violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and/or WP:TOOSOON. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely keep and of course it needs cleaning up, which I am happy to do. It is a work in progress and needs cleanup and improvement to conform with Wikipedia policies. The US and global protests to Trump's inauguration are of great historical significance. With hundreds and perhaps thousands of separate protests taking place in connection with his inauguration, which is unprecedented in American presidential history, it doesn't make sense to merge this into an existing article. A list is the most compact and efficient way to record these events and particularly significant protests can then have their own separate pages if necessary. Obtaining an accurate number of the total people attending and participating is extremely valuable and this is the place that can be done for posterity and encyclopedic purposes. For those arguing it should be deleted, please point to the applicable provision in Wikipedia's Deletion Policy that is applicable, other than general references to being non-encyclopedic ("encyclopedic" defined as "comprehensive in terms of information.") I sense other motivations for deletion from some. ClimateAction 03:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compare this to the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. That article started out as a promotional vehicle for "Hamilton Electors", a slick but shadowy social media campaign masquerading as some sort of political organization. The strong consensus in favor of keeping the article resulted in refactoring it into covering the broader topic, based on a rationale that it was some sort of profound event. Just to give one example, we're a long, long way off from determining if the 2016 Electoral College vote will have the enduring impact of 1972, when Roger MacBride single-handedly jump-started the Libertarian Party by casting his vote for John Hospers instead of Richard Nixon. Of course, it's probably a waste of time to point that out since the mentality of the moment is that the LP owes its entire existence to Gary Johnson, plus in general I'm tired of repeatedly pointing out that this community may lack a clue about "enduring impact" versus the constant array of fleeting "trending topics". Unless this article is similarly refactored or merged, it reads more like advertising for these marches and protests than anything else. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or at best merge with the page about the inauguration. This is just a list of protests, isn't encyclopedic, and could easily just be added to the main page for the event...like it already is. Fbifriday (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs some improvement, but it makes sense having a separate article on this topic, seeing how it has become a global event with protests in London, Sydney, Berlin, and tons of other places, in addition to protests across the US. There is already a well developed and lengthy article on Protests against Donald Trump, which is only likely to get longer in the days, weeks, months and years to come if he does any of the things he has said he will do, and considering how reviled he already is around the world and in his own country, so I don't think we should merge the articles at this point. --Tataral (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Inaguration of Donald Trump or Protests Against Donald Trump or both. Thats where this information belongs, not its own article.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There appears to be a duplicate article that could be merged into this one: United States Presidential Inauguration protests, 2017. ^Falling_Gravity 08:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I merged that one to Protests against Donald Trump, as it consisted of just two paragraphs, overlapping with a section of the main article. — JFG ^talk 11:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:10YT — JFG ^talk 11:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet more over the top coverage of all things anti-Trump. Purely run of the mill protests that actually fell far short of expectations. None of these protests individually or collectively merit their own article. Huge problems with WP:RECENTISM, NOTNEWS and DUE. This looks like a WP:CONTENTFORK from Protests against Donald Trump and is arguably a good candidate for CSD per A-10. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"far short"? Have you been listening to "alternate facts" (or have I). Here is what I found with one Google news search: Newsweek stated, "It also was a much bigger rally than expected..." NorthJersey.com had an article entitled, "Local women's marches draw far larger crowds than expected". Chicago Sun-Times headlines, "Chicago Women's March crowd bigger than expected" Los Angeles Times, [1] "In Houston, police estimated the crowd for the women's march had swelled to 20,000 people, much larger than expected." Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump#Inauguration protests or Inauguration of Donald Trump#Planned demonstrations and boycotts, whichever is better. It is unprecedented for there to be such an international reaction to the inauguration of a US President (I don't recall this amount of reaction when Bush became President in 2001), so perhaps there's an argument to create something like Aftermath of the United States Presidential election, 2016, an article with a much wider scope that could include a section about this topic, in a similar way that there's an article for Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, which also sparked protests (albeit on a smaller scale). This is Paul (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would agree with this article being merged or built up into an article about the Inauguration protests instead of a list of protests. That would make it much more appropriate.--ZiaLater (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the umbrella article of all the protests that happen during and around his inauguration and as an article about his inauguration. It's historically important (the crowd was not at his inauguration like Obama but at his protests/marches), there's tons of sources, there's even TV channel that dedicates their entire day programming to this. --Deansfa (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ad Orientem. We are not a newspaper. Lepricavark (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we're a bloody newspaper. Try finding an aircraft accident with deaths involved (or sometimes without) that doesn't have an article. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. It might be that the protests have long lasting political significance that resonates for a lengthy period of time, but we can't say that yet. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't like the name. It makes it sound like the article is about an inauguration of protests, not the inauguration of Trump. I saw List of Trump Inauguration Protests which redirects to this article. That would be better, except the word "protests" should not be capitalized.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Protests against Donald Trump. The subject is notable, but if you strip out Women's March on Washington which is worthy of a stand-alone article, then I'm dubious as to whether there's much stand-alone content that can not justifiably be merged into the main article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per other editr's rational who voted merge, especially Ritchie333's great comment. Too soon to tell the consequences of this, but at the moment is non-notable and in fact seems to violate WP:LISTCRUFT. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and maybe Merge content) (but see self-reply) to Protests against Donald Trump#Inauguration protests or nearby in the same article (also noting that there is a summary at Inauguration of Donald Trump#Protests for inauguration-specific protests). Unless there are protests that WP:RS describe as attempting to disqualify Trump from actually being sworn in, or that WP:RS establish as an effective boycott or disruption of the inauguration, there's no real distinction between protests before, on the day, or after January 20. The boycott by public officials is already covered at Inauguration of Donald Trump#Representatives boycotting and any others that happen to involve the actual inauguration can be covered at Inauguration of Donald Trump#Protests. Other demonstrations are just surrounding the inauguration because it's a milestone day with a lot of attention, not because the participants really thought America should cancel a January 20 swearing-in; these surrounding demonstrations can be covered in chronological or other order in Protests against Donald Trump. --Closeapple (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self-reply: After seeing User:ClimateAction's proposal below, I would in the future say Keep a separate article for January 19–21 if, excluding the 2017 Women's March and others that have their own articles and the Congressional boycott that is already in Inauguration of Donald Trump#Protests, there was substantial independent coverage (WP:GNG) of the other protests beyond local news media mentions and name/organizer/date/head count. But right now it's just a table of events, which can go into Protests against Donald Trump#Inauguration protests or Inauguration of Donald Trump#Protests. (And at that, most of those entries are for the 2017 Women's March and should be moved there instead.) --Closeapple (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I'd Merge to Protests against Donald Trump or a similar target apart from Women's March on Washington which is obviously notable. Having said that I'd Wait on this one for the time being; there's clearly more solid news here than thousands of our existing articles. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Protests against Donald Trump. It could be a sign of a goaded opposition by some foreign power or economic interest, but we can't see that now, although it has already many marks as propaganda. I don't remember (am I wrong ?) that it had happened before that a President was asked to resign before beginning his term, so it is notable. --Robertiki (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a global event of sizable proportions. --Buffaboy ^talk 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A vote for keep. Ethanbas (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, no supporting rationale? WP:JUSTAVOTE? The closing administrator should disregard comments like this. Neutrality^talk 23:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Protests against Donald Trump. This is a highly notable event, possibly one of the largest mass protests in United States and world history. Anyone want to research where this fits into large historical protests? Victor Grigas (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffaboy and Victorgrigas: What is "it's"/"this" in the first sentence? There is more than one event. Is this being confused with the Women's March on Washington and its sister events, which already have their own article? --Closeapple (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with you, I confused this with the Women's Marches. –Buffaboy ^talk 04:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AH! yes you are correct - please strike and remove my comment above, I was in error and confused and meant to comment on the Women's March on Washington. Victor Grigas (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump#Inauguration protests with a summary at Inauguration of Donald Trump. This is not stand-alone an encyclopedic article. In response to the concern about the Protests article already being too large, it should be noted that there is consensus for it to be trimmed.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A widely reported massive protest directly against an incoming US president is definitely notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shiftchange: Are you, again, confusing this article with the Women's March on Washington, per the couple of comments above, while that specific protest is notable, many of the ones in the article that is the subject of discussion is not. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Women's March was a part of a bigger worldwide protest that this article should cover. Is my understanding that there were other groups, not just related to women, who also organised protests in response to the inauguration incorrect? - Shiftchange (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We had a lengthy discussion trying to first abolish then trim Protests against Donald Trump. See here. Let me preface this by stating the RfC was not closed properly as it was one by an impatient involved editor, who then used his own decision to pare off a lot of existing content. I had added a lot of content on the post election wave protests, sourcing it all. The same complaints were mentioned then. I said there would be more, that it was the beginning of a trend. That is now proven out by the mass number of protests in the last two days, probably the peak in the protests, but who knows for sure. I said then and will repeat, we are scheduled for at least four more years of this. It will all be recent or news when it occurs, but I have contended that as a cumulative trend. Getting the reports when they are fresh is a lot easier than looking back and rebuilding the puzzle. The look back is also relevant because we can add in the longer term significance as it becomes known, but keeping the original data gives us access to the sources (assuming the media publishing them keep them alive or it is captured by the wayback machine). That's my background for the newbies in the discussion.

So we come to today. We have possibly the largest protest ever held in Washington D.C. followed by possibly the largest mass protest across cities in the U.S. and around the world. Even if they don't attain the number one rank of these superlatives, they are close. There is no way these events cannot become historical. Absolutely this is worthy of wikipedia coverage. And these events deserve their own articles. I think the post election protests as a group deserve their own article, which can certainly be expanded upon. I have started such a project in my sandbox, but I just don't have the time to write all the content those potential articles deserve . . . but I know for a fact that it is there. Several protests since November and several today would have sufficient content to merit their own articles. There is THAT much activity. We have an example of how this is done from the Occupy movement series of articles. Not as well done, we had the Tea Party protests, but even their Taxpayer March on Washington has and deserves its own article. Had wikipeda existed, the Protests against the Vietnam War would be much better detailed. Look at how the various Civil rights movements articles are broken down. These historical protests give us a roadmap of what can and should be done with this series of protests. We need the big single article and lots of sidebars, timelines, prose . . . What we don't need are artificial and probably partisan restrictions on what wikipedia can do to document this history in the making before our eyes. Trackinfo (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: Are you saying that there needs to be not only a Protests against Donald Trump article, but this Inauguration of Donald Trump protests (presumably under a different name since it's awkward) as a subtopic that's wider than just January 20, and then a 2017 Women's March article (which already exists) that's a subtopic of that, and then a article for each big Women's March that's a subtopic? --Closeapple (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No individual editor gets to decide what Wikipedia "must have". Rules and policies about notability, sourcing, due weight and recentism have been enacted following years of collective wisdom. If you find reliable sources commenting on those protests as a whole and not just advertising them, feel free to reference them here. Otherwise, there is nothing to keep. — JFG ^talk 13:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: Unfortunately you faced near-unanimous opposition in the RfC about excessive detail in the Protests against Donald Trump article; this is not a cabal against you or a reflection of partisanship, it's just normal editorial process in building an encyclopedia. If you believe the RfC close was inappropriate, you have a venue to oppose it at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. — JFG ^talk 13:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of protesters have taken to the streets of cities in the US and around the globe to rally against the new US President Donald Trump. Larger numbers of demonstrators than expected turned out for more than 600 rallies worldwide. I didn't make that up, that's a direct quote from the BBC, presumably unblemished by the partisan divide of the U.S. So you think this is insignificant? This is bigger than the Occupy movement and look at all the coverage we did on that. What I am saying is there is a lot of content to develop on this new series of protests. As I added to the Protests against Donald Trump, there are lots of sources. 600 different rallies are likely to each have several media covering them. I state this with the experience of pulling hundreds of reliable sources for the earlier protests, I know they have to be there. Sourcing each and every one of the 600, plus writing prose takes far more work. The absence of execution of this overwhelming task does not reduce the significance, it reinforces it. Has the U.S. ever seen this much protest? Have any of the presumed smaller protest movements ever had any long term significance, such as the ones I cited above? I am not stating what that significance is, we don't know. None of us do. That happens over time. Citing recentism and news are just ways to try to ignore the history happening before our eyes. Trackinfo (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere did I say that this movement was insignificant. I'm just saying it doesn't need 5 different articles and endless details on each individual gathering of protesters. The two articles Protests against Donald Trump and 2017 Women's March are enough. — JFG ^talk 14:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article needs some improvement and cleanup, I think this makes sense. — Harut ^talk 19:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the original creator of this article, I think I am okay if it is deleted. It now looks like the Women's March, which really dominated the inauguration-related protests, is building out a thorough article with a great LIST/TABLE (apparently these are ok after all!) that has estimated attendance numbers. The Protests against Donald Trump article now has okay summaries of Inauguration Protests and the Women's March, but the Inauguration Protests paragraph is currently focused too much on disruptJ20 and has no mention of the thousands of other Americans who participated in peaceful protests, rallies, marches, walkouts etc on 20 Jan (unprecedented!). I agree with comments that significant protests are likely to continue throughout Trump's presidency and that they are absolutely of great historical significance and must be covered and preserved. Only having a single article on the topic (i.e. Protests against Donald Trump article) is grossly inadequate. If people want to pretend that these worldwide protests are insignificant or that Trump is not historically unpopular for an incoming president, I think that is SAD. Perhaps a structure like the following should be adopted - (1) article on protests that occurred before the election/during the primaries (e.g. "Protests Against the Candidacy of Donald Trump"), (2) article on protests that occurred on election night/pre-inauguration/in connection with inauguration with some clever name, (3) then going forward a year-by-year article - e.g. "2017 Protests Against the Presidency of Donald Trump (Post-Inauguration)", "2018 Protests Against the Presidency of Donald Trump", as so on (assuming protests continue), and (4) any especially significant protests (e.g. similar to the Women's March) that occur going forward can have their own article. Thank you. ClimateAction talk 16:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that at least all of the sister march entries on this list should be removed, as they are duplicated and better suited on the 2017 Women's March page. Funcrunch (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — It's a shitty article now, but that just means we need to fix it, not delete it. There is definitely enough material to cover this and merit an own article. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge appropriate content to 2017 Women's March and Protests against Donald Trump. I believe user ClimateAction has the appropriate approach for the general subject of protests against Donald Trump. --Enos733 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where/if appropriate to Protests against Donald Trump and 2017 Women's March, then Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump. While the main article is cumbersome (even after a lot of the content was purged), if there's to be a split, it should happen after a thorough discussion with the many editors on that page, to determine if this is a sensible place to make that split (and whether a split should happen at all). Merge now and no prejudice against recreation if there's consensus for a split later. I see no reason to delete, however. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump and 2017 Women's March. The Inauguration protests seem to be part of the larger stories told in those main articles and I don't think a split is necessary at this point.LM2000 (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2017 Women's March. The 2017 Women's March is one of these Trump-related protests, and most of the inaugural protests are part of the Women's March against President Trump. Deleting just erases the revision history and is unnecessary in this case. epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, if this article is kept, the closing admin should note that the protests would have happened anyway regardless of who was elected. epicgenius (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, Trump would have stirred up trouble if Hillary had been elected? This kind of protest I don't think has happened since Nixon. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable events that have garnered much attention from many news outlets. Longevitydude (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or keep Many lines are not cited, but the topic provides a valuable viewpoint not available elsewhere, and there is a lot to cover. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or at the very least, merge/redirect) — this topic is or can be subsumed entirely in already existing articles protests against Donald Trump and inauguration of Donald Trump. No editor has come forward with any explanation of why the protests were independently notable other than through those events. Neutrality^talk 23:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is like nothing that has ever happened before. This article indicates that 100,000 showed up in 1973, and 20,000 came in 2001. Just the rally at the Trump Tower in New York (25,000) was larger than anything previous but the 1973 Nixon-inauguration protest crowd. Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating - the NYC rally was part of the 2017 Women's Marches, which have their own article. Neutrality^talk 15:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: No, the rally I cited took place on January 19. "25,000 Hit The Streets In Massive NYC Anti-Trump Rally Hours Before Inauguration Day" is the citation from Huffington Post. The lede of List of 2017 Women's March locations states, "The 2017 Women's Marches were a series of political rallies that took place in cities around the world since January 21, 2017." The NYC Anti-Trump rally or what I called the rally at the Trump Tower was a "massive" rally of 25,000 that exceeded any but the largest previous inauguration day protest. The Women's Day march in New York City attracted 400,000 two days later. Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree that the 2017 Women's March deserves its own article and merging this one there simply muddies the water for both. They are two separate things. This article encompasses much more than just the women's events and simply needs to be expanded to cover all the related areas. But there is no question that this article's events are notable and frankly, given the context, historic. So article easily passes WP:N(E) generally; and more specifically: WP:COVERAGE, WP:DIVERSE, WP:LASTING and WP:EVENTCRIT. X4n6 (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update – Essentially the same list has been created at List of 2017 Women's March locations (as a fork from 2017 Women's March), one more reason to delete this one… — JFG ^talk 08:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. The lead makes very clear that this article is primarily about the March on Washington and the sister marches, which are all already covered by 2017 Women's March. If there are some other smaller protests covered by this article that are unrelated to the Women's march, they can go into Protests against Donald Trump and/or Inauguration_of_Donald_Trump#Protests_and_demonstrations.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I can, in theory, imagine an article on this topic, this mishmash of random information with a poorly sourced list fails to meet even the most minimal standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, this article is titled Donald Trump inauguration protests yet most of the article content is a long list of protests that occurred on January 21 (ie, not on Inauguration Day), which is already covered in the List of 2017 Women's March locations article. Second, the small amount of remaining content is a repetition of content that can be found in a number of other articles, such as Protests against Donald Trump, 2017 United States Presidential Inauguration riots, Timeline of protests during Donald Trump's presidency and 2017 Women's March. Gfcvoice (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the information belong to the Women's March on Washington. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The protests are clearly notable, and merging it wit the Women's March just complicates things since not all the protests were associated with that. Plus we need to keep articles at reasonable lengths. Smartyllama (talk) 17:04, 27 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.