Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free America Weekend

Free America Weekend

[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)

(completely rewrote) This page has a source have were deprecated AND cannot be trusted by the wiki on UFO topics, it is also written like a advertisement, with wording like "*city name* has planned a protest, it feels sort of like a advertisement you would see online in a forum.Shaneapickle (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait per WP:RAPID. We shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion for a lack of notability when the protests haven't even happened yet. See also my own essay WP:TSTD. After a few days, if the coverage is not sustained enough, we should merge into protests against Donald Trump. Additionally, the criteria for ITN are different from the criteria for an article outright. -insert valid name here- (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reverse is actually true- people should not be creating articles assuming they will become notable in future, they should wait until an event is notable and then and only then should they create an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we were discussing whether this article should be created, I would agree with you (and with Vanilla Wizard that incubating in draftspace would be more appropriate). However, we are discussing whether this article should be deleted. -insert valid name here- (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The correct thing is "it shouldn't have been created in the first place", therefore correct outcome is draftspace. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID and WP:NOTTOOSOON. — ^EF⁵ 18:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page was made June 26th, 2025, this isnt a rapid or a not too soon violation. Shaneapickle (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shaneapickle, and the protests are today. The date of creation matters less than the current time in relation to the event date, which is ongoing. — ^EF⁵ 18:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump. Seems like just another protest, nothing special really. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and support a procedural early close as the nom did not provide any reasons for deletion, with their argument instead being that there was no consensus on posting the No Kings protests to In the News, which the nom erroneously interpreted as "a consensus that protests against trump shouldn't be on wikipedia." I think the nom is a well-meaning but inexperienced user who did not know that the bar for something being on ITN is not the same as the bar for being on Wikipedia (if failing to be on ITN is grounds for deletion, the page about the no kings protests would have been deleted by now). Personally, I think this one probably should have been in draftspace until the event actually happened. The large number of references is an indicator that the event is plausibly going to be notable enough for a standalone page after it's actually occurred, but there's no point in moving it right now while the protests are just now starting. A merge discussion can happen after the event ends and some time passes, and I'd prefer if such a discussion took place on the article talk page as I'm not a fan of nominating pages for deletion when deletion is not a plausible outcome. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit i didnt put any reasoning for deletion, but this page according to people on ITN has a source that was deprecated and could not be trusted (News Nation or whatever it was) I also agree this should have been draftified. Shaneapickle (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In an RFC, NewsNation was considered "generally unreliable" strictly in the topic area of UFOs/UAPs, and is otherwise considered generally reliable; it has not been deprecated. I encourage you to read other people's comments carefully. -insert valid name here- (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re "but this page according to people on ITN has a source that was deprecated and could not be trusted (News Nation or whatever it was)" - I believe that person's comment at ITN was talking about how the ITN nomination only mentioned one source in the ITN nomination template, and it was an outlet they hadn't heard of before, so they were not convinced that this news story is major enough to warrant posting to ITN (though I will say as a longtime ITN editor that the number of sources in the template / whether or not you heard of them is a bad rationale for opposing an ITN listing). That editor did also mention in their comment how strange and amusing it was that there's an asterisk in their WP:RS/P listing talking about their unreliable UFO-related content, but that's not really relevant to this discussion. The editor's comments at ITN were not talking about article content; they never said NewsNation was being cited in the article body (as of writing this, it's not in the sources list). But even if it were, as others have mentioned, that's okay: NewsNation is considered a generally reliable source with only one exception. But even then, even if it were a generally unreliable or deprecated source, and it were being cited in the article body, that's still not grounds for deleting the page, that'd just be grounds for removing the unreliable source through editing the page. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and revisit months later if it is having any lasting impact. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Protests in which thousands of people participate in hundreds of cities are notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump without prejudice to recreation if notability is more clearly established in the coming weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge or~~ delete just another in a string of protests against the President. It won't have any lasting notability. It didn't accomplish anything. All of the sources are just that something occured in the cities. This can be summarized in one sentence.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is barebones and lacks significance. Aneirinn (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Now there is a page for Good Trouble Lives On protest. At what point is this just going to be WP:ROUTINE? Having an article for every minor Trump protest is not helping Wikipedia's credibility against those who claim WP has a liberal bias. (And I am a Democrat).-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That one's definitely WP:TOOSOON to be an article and I agree with moving it out of mainspace. But I wouldn't worry too much about the latter half of that !vote; those who claim WP has this bias or that bias are likely not going to be swayed by the mere existence of a low-traffic page like that. If you were to speak to someone who felt Wikipedia is too biased to try to understand how they arrived at that conclusion, you probably wouldn't get a well-reasoned answer based on a careful analysis of which topics are being covered. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope we've not reached a point in society where national or international protests with thousands of participants in hundreds of locations are considered routine. Also, I'm not sure what this has to do with liberal bias; we have articles for pro-Trump protests, too: March 4 Trump, Mother of All Rallies, Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump, etc. I'm not disputing that Wikipedia can have a liberal bias but in my opinion we should be creating articles for major demonstrations regardless of ideology, party, etc. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep if this article is merged or deleted, but I don't see how eliminating the documentation of major political protests is a benefit to Wikipedia and its readers. We have good examples of what articles like this one can look like, so I would prefer to work towards that here. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt that conservatives protest too. However, these protests are forming at the rate of one every two weeks with different names. Whereas most types of protests are ongoing. These articles are just saying that people are protesting. I figure at this point that is WP:UNDUE for them to be given articles at this rate when all that is said is that there was a protest in this city and that city. I remember seeing KONY 2012 protests in my city, that wasn't included in that article, and it shouldn't it be. Note: I haven't even suggested anything against the plethora of other protests so far as those articles seem to have meat on their bones. If this article can have something more substantial than well a bunch of people held their signs in Scissortail Park on July ##, maybe I would be inclined to agree. Now for the argument that "hundreds of thousands of people participated." Hundreds of thousands of people went to the Thunder's championship parade. Do I think it should have it's own article? No.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, no cities as far as I could tell were listed. With that being said, it almost makes articles like these for upcoming protests seem like adverts.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Another Believer. This already has shown some significant coverage, and is still under construction. Each section or article need not include every single viewpoint equally, as long as overall our content is consistent and neutral, as I've written in my user space. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was not anything compared to the No Kings protests. While it received coverage, it is thin when compared to the major protests and actions of the last six months. It would be far better for it to appear on a list of similar protests. Thriley (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to compare this demonstration to No Kings, which was one of the largest protests in US history. We only need to assess if there's enough coverage to justify an article. Multiple editors here have proposed a merge to Protests against Donald Trump, which suggests the content at least has merit, but the parent article is quite lengthy and only going to continue to grow. Deleting this entry essentially scrubs mention of the protest from Wikipedia, which doesn't seem right. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be summarized in that article as "On July 5, 2025 there were the Free America Weekend protests across the country." This is WP:NOTDIRECTORY at this point. The article says nothing about why they were protesting, what their goals were, and the results (if any).- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've made your position quite clear, and I disagree that this content should be reduced to a single sentence in one article. I'm not sure how any of the six points at NOTDIRECTORY apply to an event that was held in hundreds of locations, if you could clarify. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Number 1 a simple list. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This article is not analogous to a list of phone numbers. If there's not enough context, then we should be working to fix that. There's plenty of content to add about background, activities, organizers, locations, etc. There are Wikipedia articles for many similar protests and there's no reason why this one couldn't also be expanded similar to quality entries like Not My Presidents Day, Impeachment March, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well this has been AfD for a while and it is still a list of people protesting in some areas. Frankly, none of the other articles this year have a list of every protest. I will conclude with why haven't you upgraded it as you say? This and the more recent protest based on timing reads like an advert.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, whatever, I get YOUDONTLIKEIT, but I'm moving on to other things. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does this topic meet WP:NEVENT notability criteria on its own merits?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify It's been a week and I don't see this having any lasting impact based on what's currently in the article. I don't want to !vote delete just because it's still recent enough that it could change at any time, and would give people the chance to further develop it, but it should absolutely not be in mainspace as-is, because it's not clear this wasn't just a connected series of events in one news cycle. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]