Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for the Soul of the Nation speech

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) ––FormalDude (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Battle for the Soul of the Nation speech

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Battle for the Soul of the Nation speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The only current speeches by President Biden with wikipedia pages are his inagural adresss, his first adresss to a Joint session of Congress, and his first State of the Union. All of these were important presidential remarks covered nationally. This speech, while talked about, was not different than any other speech than Biden gave, it was not covered nationally. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. What channels it aired on live don't really affect the speech's notability. The speech itself has been covered by national (see sources cited in the article) and international (Guardian, BBC) sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  But every speech made by the President is going to have coverage, the question if the speech was anything other than routine? Esolo5002 (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Keep – The article needs work but it is plainly notable. --Pokelova (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Keep – "This speech, while talked about, was not different than any other speech than Biden gave, it was not covered nationally." Is grossly incorrect to the point of being disingenuous. Primetime coverage discussed in the media internationally. More sources and prose are possible, but the article meets notability standards without their addition. Putting this all in other articles would bloat them.Outdatedpizza (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Keep – It's notable, but needs some work. More sources would help this article well. Covered by international and national sources. Nascar9919 (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Keep It would be routine coverage if the coverage is just "Joe Biden gave a speech". But given the existence of sources that outright analyze or contextualize the speech's contents, it's not routine coverage. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per Firefangledfeathers, and others. WP:RS coverage exceeds routine coverage. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - More sources will expand the page, and its significance will likely grow as American history further unfolds. Kirby777 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep – It's not about coverage, it's about content and the content of this speech is clear: "Donald Trump and his MAGA-Republican cohort are taking an active role in overthrowing American democracy." Kunanjaada (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You got it backwards. To be considered notable for Wikipedia, something needs to be widely covered. Curbon7 (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

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.