Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Bernie Sanders Facebook groups suspension

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 delete. Closing a bit early, as a WP:SNOW consensus for deletion exists at this time herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Bernie Sanders Facebook groups suspension

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

Non-notable event. It's already talked about at Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, though someone has tagged that for intricate detail and that's probably better suited being summarized at Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet memes. Wickypedoia (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – [Amended Edit: for these reasons]

What I'm saying, is that it wasn't just a "dank meme stash" situation, like WPancake claims, below. You don't generally have the whole world turning around to see what's going on, with plain old memes. But what the Hillary campaigners did to shut down the Bernie groups, grabbed peoples' attention, and made a scene. To the authors of the page, feel free to check those out, and see which of those you can use as references.

~ ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 07:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those aren't reliable sources. "The whole world" has definitely not "turned around" because of this, and your accusations against Hillary and Sanders userboxes on your userpage leads me to believe yours is not a neutral comment. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Knowledgebattle: This isn't a vote. Editors are expected to advance at least some argument. AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)~~ ~ Addressed. ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 17:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons similar to the ones given in the Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer deletion discussion. It is my understanding that an event is only considered notable if it is historical or has large-scale impact, and to say that a bunch of Facebook groups about Bernie Sanders being temporarily suspended is in any way significant is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The article it is apparently an offshoot of, Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, has similar issues and its notability is also very questionable. WPancake (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only in the crazy world of American politics could anybody argue for keeping an article about the temporary suspension of Facebook groups. This just isn't notable. No lasting significance. A totally trivial "story" picked up by the 24 hour news cycle. See WP:NOTNEWS. AusLondonder (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, WPancake, and AusLondonder. Non-notable event per WP:NOTNEWS.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This social media incident appears, in historical context, to have been a very small event--certainly not suitably notable for an encyclopedia article. OtterAM (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I'm a news junkie and if this is the first I hear about it it's clearly non-notable. Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty WP:ROUTINE coverage with no-evidence of long term notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A brief acknowledgement of this in Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 would be perfectly appropriate — but it doesn't have the lasting WP:10YT significance necessary to warrant a separate article as a standalone topic in its own right. Plus a large percentage of KnowledgeBattle's listed sources above are unreliable or user-generated ones, which cannot be used to cover off notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish that we could suspend any editing from the United States until November, so that the rest of us can get on with building an encyclopedia rather than deal with such nonsense. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha some good British humour there. A bit of truth in it, as well. AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this satisfies WP:EVENT. If it turns out to have some kind of lasting effect, we can revisit it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely a textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS. Parsley Man (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Kdowns1453 (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every single source used in the article is WP:ROUTINE (all published from April 25-27); doesn't meet the notability criteria for events. As it stands, the suspensions have not garnered significant attention from reliable sources; at most, it warrants a brief mention in the Sanders presidential campaign article.—^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and ^0xF₈E₈. CookieMonster755 ^📞 ^✉ ^✓ 14:44, 18 May 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.