Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Triggering

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Triggering

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

Not a notable event. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this article at Newsweek. The sources in the article don't really excite me, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources are present, and the Newsweek source cited above indicates the issues this event addressed are a significant and growing phenomenon. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of this event is a discussion on censorship on the internet, and I think it would be quite ironic for the page to be deleted, especially with the arguments above. --Vami IV (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Deus Vult![reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has the nominatior heard about a little something called Template:Notability? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a storm in a bottle- the event is not notable because it has no lasting effect, nor in depth or lasting coverage. Policy specific to events says not notable enough for its own article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:EVENT. Anybody have any sources at all that aren't either local or WP:RS fails? Because there are none at all in the article, and I'm not seeing any others. We have local sources (mostly published by the school) on one hand, and alt-right blogs that will cover anything "political correctness" related on the other. The latter are not typically reliable, but can occasionally be reliable for the opininos of the authors or for facts regarding subjects on which they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is not one of those. Sort of like how we should delete an article about a diversity conference that's only covered by primary sources, Daily Kos, Think Progress, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and random Tumblr blogs. Update: NRP's comment was hidden among delsorts, so I missed newsweek (and it didn't come up in the first several pages of ghits for me). That's the best I've seen by far, but its two paragraphs aren't enough to pass WP:EVENT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:GNG, especially in light of the Newsweek article another editor found. juju (hajime! | waza) 08:54, 3 November 2016 (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.