Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stop Trump movement

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. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Trump movement

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

Non notable, non encyclopedic, doesn't exist for other candidates in history and partisan. BlackAmerican (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 03:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 03:48, 5 September 2016 (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/2016 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator does not put forth any cognizable reason for deletion, and sources cited plainly demonstrate notability. Neutrality^talk 03:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the reason why this doesn't exist for other candidates in history is because a candidate has never been so openly rejected by their own party before. And this is not something that came and went. Even though now that Trump is the official Republican nominee, this movement is still being talked about. This article has 70 references. None of your reasons for deletion are valid. JDDJS (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable as a political movement, even if it wasn't successful during the primaries. Efforts to stop a candidate's nomination are often included in one's campaign page, but merging this into Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 would overburden an already long article. ^Falling_Gravity 04:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - notable political movement, article contains over 70 references all to reliable sources and that's more than enough to justify to assert both notability and verifability. —Mythdon 07:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- notable movement and the article is well sourced. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have infoboxed in the related March 2016 AFD which was a Delete, however this now has enough ongoing RS coverage to remain, and splits out from the main article. I still think that it would be better titled/targetted as "Republican opposition to the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign" or similar, however, due to the range of internal opposition. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable political movement, extensive sourcing available under multiple names already in article lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important political movement. 70 refs don't lie. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable political movement. Passes WP:GNG by a mile.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's WP:SNOWing, I suggest that the next editor who visits simply close this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and redirect to Hillary Clinton campaign. 2607:FB90:54AC:AF3F:BF6A:7A1D:33E4:10F7 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)— 2607:FB90:54AC:AF3F:BF6A:7A1D:33E4:10F7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

'Keep - It is notable because of the media converage. If there was a Stop Hillary group in the media, then it would have a page but there is not one. --Frmorrison (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – and snow close. This is very much a political movement that is alive and running. Multitude and variety in sources offer a stark contrast to the nominator's rationale. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:37, 7 September 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.