Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lion Guard

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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Guard

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Also does not seem to meet WP:GNG, and about half of the sources provided are not WP:RELIABLE, two even being from the group's own website. I highly suggest a merge of this article to another article relating to the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (possibly List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016?). Parsley Man (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Half the sources are major newspapers, the other online journalism sites (which I admit, I do not know the specific rules about their inclusion here). As far as this group not being notable, in the first month of their existence, they were reported upon and noticed by several major outlets including, as mentioned previously, several mainstream newspapers. Point of order note, as well, this group has the exact same name as a Disney series, so searching for sources on it using the defaults on Wikipedia might bring up the Disney show instead of the group. Typing "Lion Guard Trump" typically gives better results (55,000+ hits) [1] and demonstrates the coverage on this. In any event, a very notable group and one which will be remembered for some time after this election. -O.R.^Comms 01:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, at this point it is notable enough per the independent coverage and it does get a fair amount of Google hits; in the alternative, if consensus becomes one of not to keep as a stand alone article, it could be merged into one of several 2016 election articles with cites. Kierzek (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominators rational. Not independently notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per O.R. above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is a group who will likely recieve greater coverage in the immediate future and are notable due to current geopolitical matters. ☭ cmn ☭ ( ❝❞ /✍ ) 21:24, 13 November 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.