Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Arizona and Washington, D.C., hunger strike

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. The argument to redirect has once convincing rebuttal that I cannot overrule. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Arizona and Washington, D.C., hunger strike

[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)

As was predicted by delete !voters in 2021 and 2022, this event has not had any persistent coverage. I cannot find news coverage since the strike ended; it is not mentioned in articles about other acts of youth protest or otherwise used as a point of comparison. All I find googling it is tons of other hunger strikes that do not have articles, because hunger strikes, while dramatic, are a not-infrequent act of political protest, and usually do not pass WP:GNG, let alone the higher bar of WP:NEVENT. (Morbid but true, usually the thing that makes a hunger strike pass those bars is someone dying, which did not happen in this case.) Perhaps there's room for a single sentence at For the People Act (currently neither that nor John Lewis Voting Rights Act mention this), but not for an article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Arizona, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only news coverage, no indication this has lasting prominence or has been used as a WP:CASESTUDY. I'm not convinced this should be mentioned in the articles about the bills unless sources about the bills' history specifically mention this (per WP:MINORASPECT). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think a simple Redirect to the For the People Act with a mention of the strike would be preferable than deleting it outright. Article is well sourced, but don't think it merits a standalone article on its own. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of lasting effects or persistent coverage. The title is long and not intuitive, so not a plausible redirect. Astaire (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that having previously been an article would still make the title plausible, since it might be linked from somewhere off-wiki, or someone might remember the title or have it bookmarked or search. The article got 400 views in 2024, which is low but nontrivial. The real question, for redirection versus deletion, is whether there's something to redirect to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:48, 31 March 2025 (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.