Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of The Ingraham Angle

Boycott of The Ingraham Angle

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

This is an event that happened in the news about news. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Article has no encyclopedic value on its own and basically amounts to a gossip piece - essentially meets criteria for WP:COATRACK. Could be merged with David Hogg and/or Laura Ingraham but those articles already have content on this minor event. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT applies.--MONGO 18:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant parts to the Hogg and Ingraham articles. Per WP:NOTNEWS, the boycott is relevant to the people involved but does not have sufficient enduring notability for its own article. -- irn (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I'm not totally convinced that this needs its own article, and I have my doubts regarding its enduring notability. But the problem of where to merge the article is significant. The article does a good job of putting all the relevant information together in one place without running into problems of WP:UNDUE, which would be hard on any of the other target articles. I also hadn't seen any reporting about the boycott beyond simply rehashing the drama of Ingraham vs Hogg, but MrX just added some to the article[1][2] and Tomwsulcer provided one below[3], and then there's Kyle Kashuv's failed copycat boycott, all of which speak to a more enduring notability. -- irn (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, as per above. One too many articles are being created about the gun violence protests now. Werehilly (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The peak of this article is the "List of advertisers in boycott" section. It currently contains only one source. If we merge this anywhere, I believe that this stand-alone list would not be included on any other article. wumbolo ^^^ 20:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced, with multiple points of view, and is not gossip, but a serious boycott of a nationwide television news show. Wasabi,the,one (talk)
- I blocked this user for violating WP:SOCK here. --Yamla (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge to The Ingraham Angle When there's a not-that-long, current controversy article that's about the same length as its parent, there's no need for two articles. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Hosts like her would have long list of such articles if every controversy (which they create whether intentionally or not) has its own article, and would have a separate article for the list (List of controversies involving Laura Ingraham). Acnetj (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are countless multi-sided sources on this topic that could much bolster the points, and make the article much larger. I will work to make it so. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NOTE Less than a few hours old single-purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user is a WP:HAND of another user who voted here. Struck vote. --Yamla (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject has received significant coverage in major newspapers (Boston Globe, Seattle PI, The New York Times) and magazines (GQ, AdAge, Inc., Newsweek, Variety) across the US, and even internationally (Paris Match, The Guardian, Deutsche Welle, Sydney Morning Herald, Japan Times). It easily meets GNG and is an important part of historical impact of student activism following the watershed Stoneman Douglas shooting. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply since the subject is not routine reporting. The material is too long to be merged into another article without trimming essential information. Mysteriously, the OP recently voted strong keep, at an AfD for a far-less-notable subject.[4].- Mr X 🖋 21:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: feel free to renominate the other article at AfD. You say that it is "far less notable" but it was speedily kept per WP:SNOW, notability was demonstrated at the discussion, notability is still demonstrated in the article, the subject appeared in dozens of RS just like this event and you keep saying that article is non-notable and it wasn't even a week since the AfD you started. wumbolo ^^^ 22:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this article was never nominated for speedy deletion, but the aforementioned article was. It seems fit that if an article that was declared non notable gets kept, this article (which was never nominated for speedy deletion for being non notable) should get kept as well. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)~~— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]
NOTE Less than a few hours old single purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to my point of view on this article, I also believe that a case can be made that this entire AfD was made from a political motive. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NOTE Less than a few hours old single purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Assume good faith, and don't accuse someone of POV per WP:CIVIL. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 22:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 🖋 21:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 🖋 21:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 🖋 21:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poorly-contrived nomination that reeks of "I do not like it". The subject is well-sourced and the coverage continues through today (Ingraham's 'Celebrity' Sentiment Declines By A Third Post-Hogg Tweet, “YOU DON’T ATTACK A KID”: INSIDE THE LAURA INGRAHAM NIGHTMARE AT FOX NEWS. In particular, those two sources show an extension of the subject matter, beyond the boycott what is notable now is the effect this is having on Ingraham's reputation, show, and possibly her career. This material far exceeds what could be covered in either Ingraham's or Hogg's articles without creating issues of undue coverage. This is a slamdunk WP:SPINOFF. TheValeyard (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-Very little information is in this article which isn't already in the Hogg bio. It's important but I don't think it warrants a separate article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly multitudes of sources and the article can be expanded immensely. Merging the article will not allow for all of the relevant information that is out there to be in a supposed merger. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Tronald-Drumpf~~— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]
NOTE Less than a few hours old single-purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hogg and Ingraham. This is borderline but I don't think it was an important enough boycott for its own article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would someone please explain to Winkelvi that we do not strike through other editor's comments simply because they have been blocked?- Mr X 🖋 01:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's common practice in Wikipedia to strike the comments of brand new single purpose accounts that have been indeffed for vandalism and/or trolling to have their comments and/or !votes striken per WP:DENY. This is also typical of sock accounts, and, considering the amount of Wikipedia savvy the SPA demonstrated, this is likely the case in this situation. !Votes from socks and/or accounts that have been indeffed for trolling with their !votes/comments should be stricken as ineligible to contribute. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The user was blocked for violating WP:UPOL. That is not grounds for striking their good faith comments.- Mr X 🖋 01:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The indef is the result of a username complaint, however, the block notice reads: "Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior." The intent to not contribute positively as well as trolling behavior is evident in their comments here. WP:DENY applies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser as this all looks familiar.--MONGO 01:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a specific suspicion, feel free to do that, MONGO. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, I struck out the comments from the Tronald account, just now. I did so because although the original block was not for sockpuppetry, I subsequently blocked the original account and left a comment on the sock account, showing the sockpuppetry. I can reblock the Tronald account if you wish. The closer is welcome to take the Tronald comments (and vote) into account if they wish, ignoring my strike-throughs, though I believe this would be inappropriate given the abuse of WP:SOCK and as per WP:DENY (DENY, of course, being an essay rather than policy). --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is more than a "not news" flash-in-the-pan. It's significance is only beginning and it may be seen as a watershed.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Dlohcierekim: "its significance is only beginning". Do you have a reference for that fact or did you look into a WP:CRYSTALBALL? wumbolo ^^^ 09:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete - per nom. This could be a textbook example for NOTNEWS. As an aside, I do wish people would quit adding every story about the Florida shooting to the school project. This boy has no more to do with schools than chalk does. John from Idegon (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS states "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." A boycott that is still being reported on ten days later, and that has been the subject of international news coverage would seem to qualify as a significant event. I know it's not a soccer match, but still pretty important from a historical standpoint. I'm not sure when the last time was that a 17 year old spawned a major boycott within hours of calling for one. My guess would be never.- Mr X 🖋 19:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As of April 6th, there are 20 references (ie sourcing: not a problem). Does WP:NOTNEWS apply? Point 2 says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events and this story has legs beyond one news cycle, not just a day or two, but weeks, with much back and forth (will Ingraham get fired? will advertisers go back to the show? -- these are ongoing developments). NOTNEWS discourages "routine news" such as announcements; the boycott isn't routine. NOTNEWS discourages original research; again, not the case. So NOTNEWS does not really apply here. It is not just a classic David and Goliath story, with the underdog (David Hogg) taking down the cyberbully (Laura Ingraham), but it has relevance for cyberbullying in general, for advertisers, as part of the culture war, and politics. Subject is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC) About the nominator's WP:COATRACK argument; first COATRACK is not official policy; second, the gist of the coatrack complaint is that when an article ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely, that is, the article becomes a "rack" upon which other topics are hung like coats, obscuring the rack -- if so, in this case, what is the "coat" and what is the "rack"? For me, the subject and content match -- the subject is the boycott of Ingraham's show, the content matches, QED no coatrack.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomwsulcer: from how I understand the nomination, the coats are the continuous backward-forward Twitter exchanges between Hogg/Ingraham/Fox News. Regarding your points, we should talk about Ingraham's actions on her article (WP:POVFORK) and "as part of the culture war" is not an excuse (WP:CRYSTALBALL). Now let's get to the advertisers. If we remove all the coats from this article, what is left? That's right, advertisers. The point of this article is the "List of advertisers in boycott" section. So judge the notability of the boycott on that section, and not on the fight between Hogg and Ingraham/Fox on Twitter. wumbolo ^^^ 14:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo: You're saying this article is really about the advertisers? It's really about the boycott, specifically the effort to pressure advertisers to drop Ingraham's show; the content all focuses on this theme, including the back-and-forth exchanges (which I don't see as 'coats'). Like I said, WP:COATRACK isn't really policy regardless. That said, the argument about WP:POVFORK is a stronger argument for deletion, that is, is the subject matter of this article really about Laura Ingraham or her show The Ingraham Angle, and this article a fork to try to avoid achieving consensus on either? And here's where I see this boycott as a rather new and notable phenomenon, bigger and different from simply Ingraham or her show. It's the real power of social media and moral force to bring about substantive change in the marketplace of ideas. A test of this: could anybody have predicted, in advance, after what Ingraham said, that a student-turned-activist would bring down a cyberbullying talk show host? With a tweet? This is new stuff, different from any standard boycott.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Determining enduring notability in the moment is an inherently subjective and speculative exercise. When I consider the enduring notability of an event, I imagine how it will be viewed in the future (like the ten year test). Yes, this has legs beyond one news cycle, but I don't think that's enough. (But, again, that's pretty subjective.)

The other relevant guideline here is WP:NEVENT. I think it falls into the “may or may not be notable” category, and then to the subpoints, I’d say there is at best a weak argument that it meets all of the coverage criteria, but it meets neither of the event criteria. Yet. That could change if Ingraham loses the show or if this turns into a template used by others (like Kyle Kashuv's attempted copycat boycott of Eichenwald), but we're just not there yet.

Regarding its relevance for cyberbullying, advertising, culture wars, and politics, that could be a compelling argument, but I don't see it being discussed that way in the sources. If you have sources that attest to its relevance in that regard, I’d invite you to post them here. -- irn (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ten year test is not an official guideline. The WP:NEVENT is an official guideline, but it says The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded and I think this clearly applies in this case: the boycott is significant, interesting, unusual and has attracted sufficient attention. If you need more sources talking about the relevance of the boycott, check out GQ and Morning Joe and Hollywood Life and Daily Kos and many others. Like, even Republican strategist is weighing in why the boycott has been successful, that is, there are ramifications for talk show standards, political discourse, and the power of media (ie Twitter versus Fox is akin to David versus Goliath). It's a qualitatively new type of boycott, noteworthy. Overall, the strongest of the delete arguments I think is the POVFORK one, and that's open to interpretation, but my sense is the article should still stay for reasons mentioned above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John from Idegon. Flash in the pan. NOTNEWS. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Admins, please note that the ip6 user above has made few edits and fits every definition of what this project terns a single purpose account. The person is insistent on obscuring this fact, so I am highlighting this with a proper response rather than a tag, thus no more hiding. TheValeyard (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Ingraham Angle. Useless fork. — JFG ^talk 14:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: do you think the list of advertisers in boycott wouldn't create WP:UNDUE weight upon that article after the merge? wumbolo ^^^ 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. The list should be trimmed anyway, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information. We should also take care not be perceived as advocating for or against the boycott, per WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, and I feel that naming all participants accomplishes exactly that. Noting a few of the most notable brands in the prose should be well enough. — JFG ^talk 14:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here, all we decide is whether to keep, delete, merge or redirect. If the latter two, where. What gets merged is a topic for the target's talk page, not a factor in whether we merge it. Frankly, since there isn't any consensus on where to merge, if you don't want the article to stay, a delete !vote is all that makes sense. John from Idegon (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As other editors also invoked WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I have now removed the full list of advertisers, mentioned some of them in the prose, and kept a citation to the full list.[5] I still !vote to merge. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and other delete comments (single event, not news, etc) HunterM267 ^talk 15:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

admin note I guess it's not necessary to highlight the edit of the 2A02 anon with a "SPA" note. Hopefully, this will not proceed to become an unseemly edit war. Let's just leave that alone. Spirited debate is great. Edit warring not so much.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is quite necessary, given their insistence on obscuring their edit history. But they can have their Pyrrhic victory over the tag, sure, I'll just leave a response to their "vote" in its place. Problem solved. TheValeyard (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Ingraham Angle article with mentions in the articles of David Hogg and Laura Ingraham. Wikipedia is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE but this has received substantial coverage with regards to the three articles mentioned. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most of the content to The Ingraham Angle; the boycott may very well be the most significant thing that happened to this program, but it can still all be covered in the same article. When merging, I would recommend dropping the full list of advertisers, apart from a few most notable companies, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The rest of the content is good and can be merged into the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; content fork and Wikipedia is not a newspaper; most of this is already covered in other noted articles. Kierzek (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well referenced with 23 solid sources and the significant coverage in those reliable sources shows that this boycott is notable. Historians studying the tumultuous events of 2018 will benefit from this carefully curated article about this effective boycott, since journalism is "the first rough draft of history". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Successful is what way, Cullen328? Advertisers left her show. So what? The show still exists, she still has advertisers, and she will get more. The only thing successful in this scenario is Laura Ingraham. Having one of the top rated cable shows since it premiered seems pretty successful to me. As far as it being an historical event...it's a blip that went away the day after it happened. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Successful (I actually wrote "effective") in that 15 national advertisers cancelled, Winkelvi. Neither your opinion of the boycott nor mine changes the indisputable fact that it has received significant coverage in a large number of prominent reliable independent sources, and is therefore notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" for a couple of days. And certainly not something that's going to go down in the annals of history. Hogg's desire to get advertisers to leave Ingraham's show may have been momentarily successful, but advertisers are a dime a dozen in television. It's not as if she has no advertisers now and won't be able to fill all fifteen slots by the time she's back on the air next week. The final result is not what I call successful. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntarily hatting partially as a compromise. TheValeyard (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Looks like your bias is showing, given the insipid parroting of the subject's cable tv ratings, and gloating over your (wrong perception) of the effects of the boycott. Whether the boycott is measured as a success or a failure is wholly irrelevant when considering the notability of the subject matter. We consider whether the sourcing is reliable and if it is sustained over a period of time to overcome wp:notnews. Your refutations of these points has thus far been woefully inadequate. TheValeyard (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"your bias is showing" What's "showing" is my knowledge of business in the area of advertising and media. "We consider whether the sourcing is reliable and if it is sustained over a period of time to overcome wp:notnews." Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day: a relative newbie with a little over a year of wiki-experience and less than 1200 edits telling a veteran editor of nearly six years and almost 27,000 edits what makes for good content and an encyclopedic article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not belittle newer editors on that basis, Winkelvi. It is unseemly and irrelevant. I have 50,000 edits, almost nine years of editing and was elected administrator with overwhelming support. That too is irrelevant. What matters here is the strength of our arguments in line with policies and guidelines. Stick to that, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And neither should newbies talk down to experienced editors -- doing so is in the same vein as the reason behind WP:DTTR. As well, editors should not accuse someone of "bias", especially when no bias is being shown. Some would (rightly) say to do so is a personal attack, would they not? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My dear winkelvi, Yes, I have been here for only a year, but slashdot, Gizmodo, and other places I've been at for many, many years are really no different, in terms of the quality (or lack) of discussion and the veterans, i.e. you, who attempt to dominate discussions with vain appeal to authority logical fallacies. (Really, the only thing difficult to master in the Wikipedia is this antiquated discussion and indenting system, it's like designing a website in Notepad). I'm sorry that you feel chagrined at being put in your place by a so-called "newbie", but the fact remains that this story has received significant coverage over several weeks. It is not a flash in a pan, it is not insignificant or "just news", and you have been unable to refute these points. This was a spiteful nomination that came after your defeat at Talk:David_Hogg_(activist)#Discussion, with the consultation-slash-solicitation with the only user that agreed with your point of view, User_talk:Display_name_99#FYI. TheValeyard (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"you, who attempt to dominate discussions with vain appeal to authority logical fallacies. Personal attack. Nice. Please read WP:NPA. " I'm sorry that you feel chagrined at being put in your place <snort> Uh, no - I don't feel put in my place. <snort again> "this story has received significant coverage over several weeks." Nope. It's been going on just a little over a week. Next? "This was a spiteful nomination that came after your defeat at Talk:David_Hogg_(activist)#Discussion" Ah, another personal attack. Have you read WP:NPA yet? First of all, we're supposed to be looking for consensus, not to WP:WIN. Sorry you see it as something that's very anti- the Wikipedia five pillars and why we're supposed to be here. And no, this is not a "spiteful nomination". It's a necessary nomination. As evidenced by the number of "Delete" and "Merge" !votes, no less. "with the consultation-slash-solicitation with the only user that agreed with your point of view..." Personal attack #3. You're on a roll. (that's not a good thing). WP:NPA is waiting for your to review and absorb. Ta. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, Winkelvi, calm down. Your behavior here is unseemly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, Cullen328, that I was quite calm when I wrote what I did above. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then you did a very good job of simulating agitation, Winkelvi. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you saw was irritation, not agitation, with a pinch of amusement, Cullen328. Never forget that in a text-only environment, making assumptions is easy but asking questions first is wise. Especially for administrators making judgement calls. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First you said that you were calm and now you say that you were irritated. That seems contradictory to me, Winkelvi. By the way, it should be obvious to all that I am commenting here as a fellow editor, not as an administrator. If you have any further concerns in that regard, please feel free to discuss the matter on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord. I said I was calm because I was, Cullen328. One can be irritated and calm. It may seem contradictory to you, but you are not me. Please don't project your emotions and reactions to things onto me. And just for the record, when one has the block button at their fingertips in Wikipedia, they are no longer just an editor. Too many bad blocks and bad behavior by admins with other admins supporting/excusing their bad blocks and bad behavior come hell or high water puts you all in the same bin. When an administrator steps into a discussion telling an editor to calm down and issues a warning to never do something, it has a chilling effect - kind of a PTSD dog whistle sort of thing. It shouldn't be that way, but the there are those who came before you that paved the way for such distrust, unfortunately. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel that critical, even sharp, observations of your nomination and subsequent defenses, your attacks on me, and use of logical fallacies in an argument, are themselves attacks. If you feel differently, then feel free to go off to whatever warning board is appropriate. You and the nominator in that talk page discussion were the sole objections to the removal of an overlong, cherry-picked quote in the BLP of a minor, who then moved on to this related article to try and get it deleted. You cite the "number of delete and merge votes", yet as I understand it, these are not votes but rather opinions that are weighed by an administrator at the end. Surely such a veteran editor knows that "votes" in a deletion discussion are not simply tallied, right? Many of the "delete per notnews" are inadequate and offer little in the way of an actual, tangible reason. In fact, you (the Wikipedia "you") have a guide that covers just that, WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Which, really, covers your IMO lacking nomination. Should we revisit that nomination?
WP:NOTNEWS. Does not fit any of the 4 criteria. It is not first-hand news, not routine news, 3 and 4 are not really applicable, IMO.

Article has no encyclopedic value on its own and basically amounts to a gossip piece. Subjective opinion, not relevant to much of anything.

essentially meets criteria for WP:COATRACK. Not seeing where the article runs afoul of this. It does not spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing Ingraham, it is tightly focused on the events at hand.
Could be merged.... That there is uncertainty on where to merge kinda speaks for the need of a standalone article. The event is bigger tan either person's biography, and diving into the necessary detail may run into WP:UNDUE issues. A standalone article alleviates that.

this minor event. A teenage shooting survivor is harangued by an established news personality, the teen figuratively snaps his fingers and two dozen advertisers poof into thin air. Not only is the boycott itself newsworthy, but also the sourced commentary regarding the influence of the shooting survivors in the wake of that tragedy.
~~But hey, I'm just a newbie who likes Doctor Who. TheValeyard (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]~~
Note: I have undone Winklevi's extemely bad-faith and disruptive hatting of the above. I have made valid, pointed, and detailed criticims of his nomination, and will not see this silenced and hidden from view. TheValeyard (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:XY, WP:RAPID, WP:DEADLINE. Renominate in a week. wumbolo ^^^ 11:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The subject has received sustained news coverage for the past ten days, with no signs of abating any time soon. Also, the article has been visited by more than 3000 readers.- Mr X 🖋 18:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS still very much applies. And it hasn't received sustained significant news coverage for the last ten days. That died down after day three. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incorrect and easily-debunked assertion. Bill Maher Comes to Laura Ingraham’s Defense Amid Ad Boycott: ‘Is That American?’, dated April 6 2018. ~~You are also reminded, for a 2nd time, to stop hiding my relevant and policy-based critiques of your arguments above.~~ TheValeyard (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheValeyard: Mediaite isn't really a RS, it's a blog website. wumbolo ^^^ 19:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, let's not be picky here. It's also in Newsweek. I only picked the 2nd one down, Mediate, because Newsweek's caption was in all-caps and I didn't want to post that and look yelly. TheValeyard (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No it doesn't. Yes it does. (In that order). There was coverage in multiple sources just a fews hours ago. Please don't base your arguments on false claims.- Mr X 🖋 19:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The significant, continuous news coverage occurred a week ago and was over with as of Monday, April 2, 2018. See here Yahoo news regurgitating the same thing that was said a week ago isn't significant and it isn't continuous. Bill Maher mentioning Ingraham and the boycott isn't significant, continuous coverage, either. It's a mention. WP:NOTNEWS still very much applies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A simple Google search reveals that to be false.- Mr X 🖋 19:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A web search was included in my previous comments. You are free to claim it's untrue, and free to believe it, but doing so doesn't make the reality change or go away. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know anyone used yahoo anymore. :) But seriously, several sources have noted Maher's defense of Ingraham, you can't just handwave that away. It happened yesterday, and shows the story is still ongoing. Multiple sources also note that the "vacation" is almost up, such as the AP story carried by Time] and ABC. That is from today, and shows the story is still ongoing. TheValeyard (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not news about news It's analysis of advertising. It's in the news, but so are many things. The various articles, shows and opinion pieces focused on one thing are what makes coverage "significant". That said, I don't care whether we keep or delete it. Pick one for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, April 7, 2018 (UTC)

Keep Poor nomination of an article that the OP simply doesn’t like. I’d also like to point out that the OP recently voted strong keep, at an AfD for a far-less-notable subject [6]. This subject and article is well-sourced and coverage is ongoing (Ingraham's 'Celebrity' Sentiment Declines By A Third Post-Hogg Tweet). This is above and beyond what could be covered in either Ingraham's or Hogg's articles without issues of undue coverage. WP:SPINOFF applies. Also the subject has received significant coverage in major newspapers and magazines across the US and internationally. GNG is easily met and the subject is an important facet of the impact of student activism after the Stoneman Douglas shooting. That WP:NOTNEWS doesn’t apply should be obvious to anyone familiar (subject isn’t routine reporting). Cabinalto (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)— Cabinalto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per clear consensus and reasons already stated (disregarding socks). Secondary sense (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]