Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeploraBall

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 split between keep on the one side and merge/delete on the other. Although the "keep" side is in the majority, it does not have clear consensus, particularly considering that several "keep" votes consist of rather perfunctory references to the media coverage without discussing the other side's arguments that this topic might be more suitably covered as part of existing articles. Perhaps a new discussion after some time, after the initial wave of editing and reporting about the presidential inauguration has subsided, might be useful. Sandstein 08:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeploraBall

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

Yet another WP:NOTNEWS article which doesn't pass the WP:10YT. Delete or merge a couple sentences to Inauguration of Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 11:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WBEZ Chicago Radio Program (for weekend of Jan/21/2017) discussed this. It is *not* merely a part of the inauguration of Trump in 2017. Rather, it is a key explanation in the campaign for and election of Trump. It's not about a one-day event, but a campaign of focused trolling for Trump.
Keep: Alt-Right Celebrates Trump at 'Deploraball,' Says Media Is Next Target --Newsweek --Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: I find the arguments of Drmies sufficiently compelling to strike my !vote above. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (From the Article Creator): There are several sources that describe the event independently of the ongoing Trump protests such as Rolling Stone, Wired, New York Magazine, and New York Times. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS though I can be swayed if more sources are brought forth.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Here are several more sources that discuss the event apart from the protests: Huffington Post "Inside (and Outside) The Alt-Right’s Inaugural Celebration", The Atlantic "The 'New Right' and the 'Alt-Right' Party on a Fractious Night", Business Insider "The 'Deploraball' bash laid bare the fractious tension between the 'new right' and the 'alt right'" and Time Magazine "Inside Gays for Trump’s Deploraball Dance Party" (Refrencing a second "DeploraBall" at Potomac, Maryland. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 21:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral in light of these sources, though I'm still not convinced that this will still be significant in five years.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A balanced encyclopedia should cover both sides. 93.224.111.142 (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS One can quickly find international media coverage: Finanznachrichten.de, Welt.de, 20minutes.fr ...

Keep:. I would like to have said merge, with the content merging into an article about the whole re-use of Clinton's "deplorable" attack - but no such article currently exists. The subject deserves more than just a single sentence mention in Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that! (says the guy who had to debate for weeks before fellow editors admitted that yes, Clinton's "deplorables" remark was a thing) — JFG ^talk 00:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: I also debated in the talk pages for Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 regarding Clinton's "deplorables" remark. In fact, I started a lengthy RfD Discussion that can be seen in Archive 8. The term, "Deplorables", is still used by news sources after the election. Here are some example articles to start an independent article regarding Clinton's "Basket of deplorables" comment: CNN: "Clinton's 'deplorables' comment 'definitely could have alienated' voters" (December 4, 2016), Financial Times: "Year in a Word: Deplorables" (December 26, 2016), Wall Street Journal: "Doubling Down on 'Deplorable'" (December 9, 2016), The Guardian: "A morning with 'adorable deplorables': why Trump supporters are optimistic" (January 20, 2017). Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshiman6464: Be bold, create it! I'm sure there are plenty of relevant analyses of this moniker by now. It's certainly way more encyclopedic than some celebration party in DC… — JFG ^talk 01:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: I started on the article; I will expand the "Background" and "Reactions" section. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I think I will wait a little bit before changing my vote to merge. There seems to me to be too much emphasis on the phrase's origin in it. Though Clinton set it in motion, its usage has had almost nothing directly to do with her since them. So I think the bulk of the content should be about its post-Clinton speech usage. It is an important example of Reappropriation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recentism (but probably not in violation of WP:NOTNEWS); first two rationales in this discussion are extremely weak and the one by the IP is completely irrelevant. Likely not to provoke lasting news coverage in future, if any or maintain enduring notability, in any case. I'd note that I might be inclined to believe that Koblenz summit deserves an article by similar standards, though. Mélencron (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Basket of deplorables, now there's an article for that (thanks Yoshiman6464. — JFG ^talk 08:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: The details of the article deal with more than "Deplorables"; the article also deals with members of the Alt-right, the ongoing Trump protests, and sister celebrations. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to inauguration of Donald Trump - can be discussed in that context. Neutrality^talk 16:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: The event wasn't officially held by the Trump administration. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshiman6464: Yes, but it was clearly associated with the inauguration. (Note that protests are also not officially sanctioned, but they are discussed in the inauguration article). Neutrality^talk 20:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on provided sources. Cards84664 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if you must, a redirect as Neutrality suggests. Or somewhere else. Of course there are sources: every partisan fart is sourced. That doesn't make it notable. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by sources. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I'm concerned these sources prove the event happened, as one event in a series of many events--not that it was of encyclopedic significance. A few minutes on a radioshow, a short article or two making fun of the guests and the name, that's about it. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drmies: The sources in question describe the event outside of the protests such as The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Time Magazine. Most small political events do not receive that national coverage. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (From the Article Creator): To the individuals who want to Delete or Merge this article such as Mélencron, Drmies, JFG, User:Neutrality, and Tiptoethrutheminefield, the event had been covered more recently by NBC News (Regarding the Gays for Trump event) and Gizmodo (with more details regarding the event). Furthermore, according to the NBC article, there will be another "Gays for Trump" Deploraball on July 4th. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note That the Deploraball is in the news because D.C. police were given a covertly filmed videotape (filmed by right-wing activists, non-violent activists) of left wing activists at a DisruptJ20 meeting plotting to disrupt the Deploraball by spreading acid. One activist in the film has been arrested. I have added press accounts to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that reliable sources don't talk about acid--they talk about "stink bombs". Quite a difference. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do think that the arrest makes notability a slam-dunk.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? An arrest is all it takes to become encyclopedic? Drmies (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The arrest, on charges that the protestors plotted to "activate the sprinkler system and deploy acid that can burn skin and lead to loss of vision into the ventilation system" at this Ball (along with material already on the page,) does take notability out of the category of moot and move it into clear notability, yes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M. Gregory, no, simply no. A conviction, maybe. An arrest, no. You can't be serious. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should refrain form disrupting this discussion by removing material about the planned acid attack form the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which edits you're talking about, but there is nothing that says an article can't be edited while at AfD. Please be more specific. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you mean now: the unreliable Washington Times uses that phrasing. The more acceptable sources call it a stink bomb. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Dmries is incorrect, the phrasing I quote above about "acid" is from the Washington Post here: [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. This is an article about a party with absolutely no lasting historical significance or relevance. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The encyclopedia does not need an independent article about a party that people will forget within a week. The information could be summarized in one or two sentences in the inauguration article.- Mr X 01:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The agenda is simple and reflects MSM partisanship -- support Anti-Trump actions (Category:Protests against Donald Trump) which "of course" are encyclopedic -- and belittle support for Trump, and take care that it will be forgotten as soon as possible. 93.224.110.76 (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cabal. Feel free to nominate protest articles for deletion. Some of them are already at AfD. — JFG ^talk 12:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. There sure is no cabal or conspiracy at Conservapedia either. But the adamant illusion of NPOV is found at many places. 93.224.110.76 (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My agenda is that of the encyclopedia. I was very, very happy to see a wholesale pruning of the plethora of Occupy articles a while ago. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department announced the arrest of Scott Ryan Charney -- one of the three people shown on a Project Veritas video -- for Conspiracy to Commit an Assault.[2][3] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I don't see why a single arrest would make the ball notable. It doesn't make the person or the outfit they belong to notable either. Flash in the pan. News, nothing more. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant facts & Redirect to Inauguration of Donald Trump. This is a pretty glaring case of WP:RECENTISM and it clearly fails WP:10YT. We need to put the brakes on the wave of new articles related to Donald Trump. Far too much of this stuff does not warrant stand alone articles. Seriously. There was a party and it got some news coverage. Big deal. On the other side of the coin, just how many articles do we need dealing with the various anti-Trump protests that have been going on? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that article needs a major revision as post-game analysis such at The weakening of the 'alt-right': how infighting and doxxing are taking a toll, in yesterday's The Guardian continues, here: [4]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTNEWS AusLondonder (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been discussed in a number of publications including Business Insider (linked earlier in the discussion) and Politico as illustrating or fomenting tensions in the alt-right, even before the event actually happened; it's now getting a fresh round of coverage in mainstream media due to the involvement of comedian Drew Carey's 11-year-old son. (Edited for link fixes)TheBlinkster (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It might be near the borderline, but I think this event has achieved enough lasting notability to be more than a passing news story. It's still being mentioned in articles like this one from a few days ago[5] (not largely focused on the event, but discussing it in the context of the 'alt-right' in general). There are going to be lots of pro-Trump and anti-Trump events in future, and many of them won't be notable, but I believe this one was. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 28 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.