Deletion of A More Perfect Union

Comment: If you read |the notability guidelines, you will find that there is no such thing as temporary notability.  Once something is notable, it's notable forever.  I mean, I can't really think of many more things notable than this, to be honest
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: undeniably |notable. No other speech in this election cycle has had as much coverage as this one by far
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Secondary sources are a barometer of notability, but right now its content for Wikinews. In November, or possible sooner, if the speech has had some kind of massive effect, then it could be recreated. Otherwise, the notability we're conferring is rystal
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: I agree, |notable. Wonderful speach. Deserves it's own page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I'm on the other side of the atlantic, and I never even heard of this.  Perhaps it appears notable depending on your politics and that is why there are two ''strong'' opinions being voiced here.  For me, and I've no axe to grind either way, the closing admin should pay close attention to   and the fact that a short burst of media attention does not make a speech notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX)

Comment: Obviously notable and verified with adequate |reliable published sources. Published sources are the sole barometer of notability, and they cover the speech in-depth. Thus, we must acknowledge it's notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I was going to vote delete per "Wikipedia is not news", but now that I've seen how low the de facto threshold for inclusion of speeches and even minor incidents involving politicians (as per the "Bush pretzel incident" and the "not Kennedy" articles mentioned above), I'm inclined to keep. Some will say this goes against  but I maintain that reasoning by analogy is the main way of achieving consistency and since guidelines are supposed to reflect practice rather than the other way around, I'll go with analogy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: The only applicable guideline here, due to the topic at hand, is  - and this article satisfies it with aplomb. Absolutely no reason to delete. The references speak for itself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: per ,  and #NEWS.  My newspaper just has the speech as a minor aside in the daily campaign coverage - secondary to the rejection of Hillary's result in Florida
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:UNDUE||WP:NOT)

Comment: Speech meets notability requirements for media coverage and newspapers, not for encyclopeadia coverage. This article's inclusion makes wikipedia look more like Wikinews and a soapbox  instead of an encyclopeadia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX)