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. People can, and do here, disagree in good faith about whether this was routine news coverage of a routine political event, or something of lasting importance. Sandstein 09:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Article seems like a promotion or advertisment of the person. Hemant Dabral^Talk 14:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Coverage in the New York Times, Bloomberg, and The Guardian in the article, all major news sources. Not sure why WP:NORG and "person" are brought up in the nomination, as this is actually an event, not an organization or person. The criteria for an event is WP:NEVENT. While we don't know for sure if the coverage of the event will be lasting, my take on that debate is that the article should be kept until it is obvious that the coverage is not lasting. Otherwise, we'd have to have a year or two hiatus before creating articles on about an event. Feel free to disagree with that interpretation. Hog Farm (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hog Farm: The nomination statement is poorly argued, but consider the following; leaders of each of a dozen or so "large" countries make a dozen or so visits of state every year. Most of them will receive quantities of press coverage in each country. Are we to write articles about each of those? Does the coverage this visit has received exceed that of other visits of state so substantially? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vanamonde93: Normally, I'd say the best way to handle that situation would be to create an overall article for each countries relations. However, there's quite a bit of sourcing in reliable, independent sources for this event. If all of the coverage was from one country, that might give pause. But we've got coverage from an Indian source, several from the US, and The Guardian from the UK. WP:NOTNEWS can be invoked, but don't know with certainty that this is an event that won't generate lasting coverage - we just don't know right now. I have no prejudice against a renomination in 6-8 months if this turns out to be a one-hit wonder, but right now I think there's enough coverage from a large enough geographic scope to keep for now. Hog Farm (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia has a number of articles dedicated to protests, marches and rallies about Donald Trump. March 4 Trump is one such example. This article is a stub right now and lacks promotional content contrary to the nom's claim. --RaviC (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems to fall under not news guidelines. Newspapers cover events like this, but we do not need to cover them event by event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep important event in foreign relations of both nations and following riots.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant foreign visit by leader of major country. Obviously notable, and the argument that it's not because we don't know the impact yet is ridiculous - by that logic we can't have an article about any event until years out. Smartyllama (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article satisfies the basic criteria to remain. As pointed about above. While it is still a stub, it can be expanded. There are several instances of controversies about the even itself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Sources routinely report on international diplomatic visits, so routine coverage doesn't help establish notability. We don't need a new article for every time a politician visits another country. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. It's a routine state visit. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Visits of state by leaders of large countries always get extensive press coverage. An equivalent amount could be written about any of Modi's visits to the US, or about many of Trump's visits abroad. As such I do not see how this clears WP:NOTNEWS. At least a part of the coverage derives from the Delhi riots occurring at the same time; but that fact and associated commentary can be covered at North East Delhi riots, and does not require a standalone article. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Hog Farm passes WP:GNG and WP:RAPID significant foreign visit by leader of major country the only question arguably is whether it meet WP:LASTING in the long term ,that is tough to say at this point .But as of now it is clearly keep.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge to Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration#India or weak keep. This seems like a notable event, and many WP:RSs exist on Trump's India visit, including those analyzing it, the rally, and their importance (I'm surprised the WP article is so lightly sourced) -- thus, I oppose deleting it outright. Since the rally is part of Trump's visit to India, I think making it a redirect is most appropriate. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS per Vanamonde93. KartikeyaS (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2020 (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.