Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump baby balloon

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 keep. I am closing this early per WP:SNOW.

I can understand the argument for deletion, as it's an argument I've sympathized with in the past. To summarize it, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this means that there are some topics which may be "newsworthy" but not "encyclopedia-worthy". A topic is not necessarily suitable for a standalone article even if it has received significant coverage in a lot of reliable newspapers (the WP:N lead states that an article must both meet WP:GNG and not be excluded by WP:NOT). Instead, to determine encyclopedic notability, we look at things like lasting significance and persistence of coverage.

However, with that being said, these are not things that we can necessarily determine soon after an event takes place. There is a broad consensus here that given the extent and breadth of the coverage about this topic, it is reasonable to keep this article and allow it to develop for the time being. Many editors also argued that the extent and breadth of the coverage indicates that it is more than merely newsworthy, and even those who sympathize with the deletion argument have suggested valid alternatives to deletion, such as merging to Protests against Donald Trump or rewriting the article so that it is more about the events/protests in which the balloon was flown.

For these reasons, I believe that at this time, there is no real chance that this discussion will result in any other outcome besides "keep". For the same reasons, I do not recommend starting something like a merge discussion in the weeks immediately after this discussion is closed. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump baby balloon

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A WP:NOTNEWS flash-in-the-pan. Ridiculous article about a snippet in time. No encyclopedic value whatsoever. Fails WP:GNG over the long-term and is a WP:1E. ~~Suggest Another Believer be trouted for creating it, he knows better.~~ -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it does seem to largely be eligible for consolidation at Protests against Donald Trump#Trump Baby balloon. I don't usually edit, or read, US politics articles, so I will refrain from !voting at this time. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTOPINION. I agree it can be included in an article about the London protests but it's not notable for a stand alone article. If it was just about every individual balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade would have its own article. Blue Riband► 02:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Like Inflatable pigs on Roger Waters' tours and Pink Floyd pigs? Probably notable. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion"? Have you even read the article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 05:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This very, very easily passes GNG. So, where are the guildelines that say "passes GNG, however should be deleted because...". Because it so easily passes GNG, there ought to be a guideline argument that is really strong to cause delete. I do not see one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering the huge media coverage, controversy over permission, reactions, and uniqueness of the subject, it was reasonable to create it. So, the creator should not be trouted as suggested above. In fact, the person who suggested that is about to be trouted per WP:DONTBITETHECREATORS. Ha! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Anna Frodesiak: Just FYI, I didn't even expand the article. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now maybe merge with Protests against Donald Trump#Trump Baby balloon in a couple weeks after the immediate coverage settles down. That said, this is an article about the object as much as the protest, so maybe could be kept later too. I'd say this is a merge discussion at best, not an AFD. Major coverage, clearly passes GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 03:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. We are far too hasty to create article about everything Trump-related. Also, trouts are a net-negative and we should get rid of them altogether. Lepricavark (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFoRUM

There are trouting boundaries. Nobody should be trouted for trouting someone who suggested someone be trouted. That would be over the line. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I draw the boundary in a different place. Some people say "never tweet", which is probably good advice. My personal policy is "never trout". Lepricavark (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the trouter who trouted the trout suggester, I opted for goating. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe it. You just goated me! The cheek! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lepricavark, I must agree. Trouting is not very nice. Of course, speaking ill of trouting is troutable. We must tread lightly, my friend. Let's hope this goes unnoticed. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. I am sure that a Trump-related AfD will attract very little attention.

Lepricavark (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, and for being too much content to merge into Protests against Donald Trump. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Winkelvi: No need to call me out. I actually added the short blurb to the Trump protests article and created the balloon page as a redirect. Another editor expanded the redirect, so please be careful about who you trout. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I even had a hand in linking it. Plus, I almost stubbed it a few days ago. Like a ouija board, we all helped spell T-R-U-M-P B-A-B-Y. So, it exists now, and it ought to remain somewhere at Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per norms, easily passes GNG Act345 (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per GNG and NOTNEWS is not a suicide pact for all single events regardless of cultural impact. --Fæ (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to speedy keep as 1E no longer can apply so there is no logic in keeping this open. Anything else should be discussed on the article talk page. --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) WP:1E may no longer apply, however, that doesn't remove the valid observation of WP:GNG (long-term notability is key for an encyclopedia) as well as WP:NOTNEWS - both of which have been noted by other editors !voting delete in this AfD. (2) Speedy keep is not appropriate, either, as there are delete and merge !votes in this nom discussion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG by a country mile and nothing in NOTNEWS prohibits articles about subjects that happen to be in the news; and especially not when they've been in the news over two weeks - and still an ongoing matter (as clearly stated in the hatnote template), so there will be more coverage adding to notability over the coming days. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 05:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. News? It's about an artwork, no? - I had a deletion discussion about a person in WP:DE once who was considered not notable, but it was kept after all saying that if a statue is erected for this person for so-an-so-much money, he must be notable enough ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork, yes. A nice viewpoint that did not occur to me. I should move from Keep to Speedy keep considering that. Thank you, Gerda. :) It's starting to snow at this AfD. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow? Not. Three deletes and two merges so far takes this AfD out of the realm of possibility for a snow close. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As artwork it's broadly similar to Rubber_Duck_(sculpture) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.187.157 (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep too much info to be merged, I think, and passes GNG. Lirazelf (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2018
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump#Trump Baby balloon a few weeks later. This is just an immediate media coverage. Though it meets GNG, it won't be last for a long time. --B dash (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Keep had avoided !voting since I felt we were reaching pile-on stage, but with a different one before I thought i'd add. Clearly far too much coverage, which started well before the actual occurence and has carried on past so WP:LASTING isn't an issue. I don't think WP:NOTNEWS would apply in any case, but technically it's a thing, though I think that would be dodging it as a method. In any case certainly notable under whichever guideline you choose to apply. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It easily satisfies WP:SIGCOV, WP:LASTING, and WP:GEOSCOPE. There is too much interesting, encyclopedic material available for this to be merged to another article. Protests against Donald Trump is already too long. The AfD nom is rife with false claims, insults, and very poor understanding of Wikipedia policy. I wish I could say it was the first time... - Mr X 🖋 11:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep Normally sceptical about such things but this has been widely reported and has historic and cultural notability. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump#Trump Baby balloon for now. Then re-evaluate at a later date to determine WP:LASTING as it is far to soon to know that right now. Also from what I can tell there really has not been any substantial impact from it either, besides being another protest. Lastly yes it received significant coverage, but it's already dying down so WP:FART comes to mind. PackMecEng (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge some reasonable summary of the content to an appropriate section in Protests against Donald Trump (and/or to a section of a page about the London protests), just as Pussy hat redirects to 2017 Women's March#Pussyhat Project. It's just a screwy stunt and, as Bri succinctly put it, "it's not notable for a stand alone article. If it was just about every individual balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade would have its own article." – Athaenara ✉ 14:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable and of more than just news-worthines; the coverage in RS demonstrates that (and is the only thing this discussion is about). Incidentally, Athaenara it was Bri who cogently argued against the Macy's analogy. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, User:Blue Riband wrote that statement, not User:Bri. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Another Believer: I know. That's what I just said. Is that you, that you, O Echo?! :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, but perhaps eventually incorporate this into a wider article about the visit that discusses other topics such as the protests, Trump's comments re Brexit, and so on. This is Paul (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Depending on what happens over the next few weeks, this could either be shortened and merged into Protests against Donald Trump#Trump Baby balloon (we don't need all of the fundraising and construction details if this is a one-time event) or expanded. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor arguement, see WP:NTEMP--Rusf10 (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NTEMP: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 12:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This type of article is the very reason WP:NOTNEWS exists. Ten years from now, no one is going to be writing in-depth articles about this balloon. Maybe a sentence or two in Protests against Donald Trump, that's about it.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite agree that "This type of article is the very reason WP:NOTNEWS exists": "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". - MrX 🖋 16:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're misunderstanding what significant means--Rusf10 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're clearly misunderstanding what NOTNEWS says - but if you believe otherwise, please feel free to quote the specific part you think applies. Hint: it has four criteria: "Original reporting", "News reports", "Who's who" & "A diary". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Getting news coverage for now, and will be remembered for a while. It's notable. The debate over whether it was appropriate for the mayor of London to allow it will probably continue for a long time. Ultimograph5 (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. Minor trivia at best. --RaviC (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note also that all of the images involved are up for deletion at Commons too. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely covered by multiple RS and notable enough for a short article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this has received large amounts of media coverage. Uses reliable sources that include the New York Times, BBC, and Washington Post. Definitely meets WP:SIGCOV. Tillerh11 (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG / WP:NEVENT; there's already follow-on coverage such as "Meet the brains behind the ‘Trump Baby’ balloon", Washington Post. Sufficient to anticipate lasting significance at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Trump himself commented on the balloon so it's guaranteed that it will gain more news coverage, until it pops. Nominator should read WP:RAPID. wumbolo ^^^ 20:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Protests against Donald Trump article. I like the balloon a lot actually and wish I had one of my own. But it's a flash in the pan unless someone starts mass producing these things and they fly in mass formations over the crowds of screechers.--MONGO (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely that would only be the case if it was gaining notability as a common protest method (candle lights etc). Instead it is notable as a (probably?) one-off big protest device that has gained dozens of newspapers over the course of three weeks or so. There is a time element, sure, but it can be generated by a one-off event. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a requirement; but even if it were, a Google search for (for example) donald trump balloon tshirt shows that mass reproduction of the design is now happening. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - item has lots of news coverage. At a later date, may be appropriate to merge with Protests/Criticism of Trump article(s). Squad51 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not temporary, read WP:NTEMP. It either notable or not. Something can't be notable now, but become non-notable later, that's the very reason WP:NOTNEWS exists.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly notable right now, so I guess that means it is notable. I'm just saying later on it could be merged; that wasn't a comment on notability.Squad51 (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Githan keep- Merge with July 13th London anti-Trump protest.https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-visit-london-protesters-stage-one-of-uks-biggest-rallies-in-years-1143628192.20.203.119 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As the Trump Baby has been used in protests in Edinburgh, it cannot be merged into a text about the London protest alone. The fact is that this is not a one-event thing mime, and it seems likely that the balloon is going to tour elsewhere. --Fæ (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They crowdfunded to afford the balloon, and ended up raising more than they needed. The guy behind the idea has said that he will use the money to send the balloon on other foreign trips Trump takes. That means no 1E concerns. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the gng. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to add something to NotNews to make people wait at least a week (tomorrow) before nominating something with this rationale. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1:Maybe people should wait a week before they write the article?--Rusf10 (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on, Rusf10. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I believe that full on. 2 wrongs don't make a kite. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: It would have been better if you had proposed renaming the article to Protests against Donald Trump's 2018 visit to London or something like that. The simple fact of the matter is that with hundreds of thousands of attendees each of these protests is independently notable even if the balloon may not be.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This AfD is now ~~disruptive~~counter-productive, stopping the colloborative process dead in its tracks. IMO, the page should be renamed/merged to cover the much more notable protests with over 250,000 protestors. But that discussion cannot occur while this IDONTLIKEIT nomination sits here.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, not disruptive and nope, not a IDLI nom. If you want to work on the article in a collaborative manner, go for it, Coffeeandcrumbs. No one's stopping you or anyone else from doing that. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have struck my statement. I still believe it was counter-productive. There were other solutions besides AfD. I never said I couldn't edit the page, but you prevent several other more NPOV options.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course nominating an article for deletion when it is correctly tagged with {{current}} is disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they used the balloon again, creating more coverage (sometime around while he was golfing, was not paying full attention to the news). This balloon is no longer a single-use event. I'd state that it will definitely be getting more use, but that goes into WP:CRYSTAL. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG and per Gatemansgc. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was tempted to support a snow close because the nom almost entirely failed to provide a relevant policy-based rationale. Instead, they spent a good amount of their rationale insulting the creator. Most editors “know better” not to do that. One-event does not apply and follow-up coverage exists, as demonstrated by above comments. The nom could/should have considered alternatives to deletion, like merging, for a subject that obviously warrants mentioning in some form.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the above commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject gaining all kinds of traction. Having lasting/knock on effects and easily within GNG. Edaham (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since when is being a 1E a rationale for deletion, Winkelvi? wumbolo ^^^ 08:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I generally don’t like recent events in WP. But, this appears destined to become an important piece of protest art. Merge is problematic as the protest article already has 300 cites, and is likely to grow larger. O3000 (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's not a snowball's chance in hell for this object (blimp/balloon) to fail notability (it's seen massive recent attention, and it's on tour, bound to experience more attention, not going to fade into oblivion).
Furthermore: This AfD nomination has a strong smell of WP:WL (i.e.: At best, the nominator is being confused on WP's means versus ends. At worst, it's an AfD created in bad faith).
-- DexterPointy (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you I'm not confused about anything, WL doesn't play into the nom at all, and there's no bad faith behind the nom. It is possible and preferable to !vote without disparaging the nominator by questioning their motives - maybe you should have chosen that route, instead. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Says the nominator who felt free to disparage the person he wrongly thought had written the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable topic with ample in-depth coverage from six of seven continents, though I haven't seen the latest editions of the Antarctica Gazette. Alansohn (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I hate when wikipedians nominate articles for deletion just because they are trendy and say there will be no significant coverage after a few days, which is stupid because we won't know until we wait and see how long coverage lasts. The same thing happened with Yanny or Laurel and it's still an article. 344917661X (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2018 (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.