Deletion of Donald Trump baby balloon

Comment: as Trump himself commented on the balloon so it's guaranteed that it will gain more news coverage, until it pops. Nominator should read 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID)

Comment: This type of article is the very reason  exists. Ten years from now, no one is going to be writing in-depth articles about this balloon. Maybe a sentence or two in Protests against Donald Trump, that's about it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per .  I agree it can be included in an article about the London protests but it's not notable for a stand alone article.  If it was just about every individual balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade would have its own article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTOPINION)

Comment: they used the balloon again, creating more coverage (sometime around while he was golfing, was not paying full attention to the news). This balloon is no longer a single-use event. I'd state that it will definitely be getting more use, but that goes into 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: This very, very easily passes |GNG. So, where are the guildelines that say "passes GNG, however should be deleted because...". Because it so easily passes GNG, there ought to be a guideline argument that is really strong to cause delete. I do not see one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: easily meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:GNG)

Comment: It easily satisfies , , and . There is too much interesting, encyclopedic material available for this to be merged to another article. Protests against Donald Trump is already too long. The AfD nom is rife with false claims, insults, and very poor understanding of Wikipedia policy. I wish I could say it was the first time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:LASTING||WP:GEOSCOPE)

Comment: had avoided !voting since I felt we were reaching pile-on stage, but with a different one before I thought i'd add. Clearly far too much coverage, which started well before the actual occurence and has carried on past so  isn't an issue. I don't think  would apply in any case, but technically it's a thing, though I think that would be dodging it as a method. In any case certainly notable under whichever guideline you choose to apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per , but perhaps eventually incorporate this into a wider article about the visit that discusses other topics such as the protests, Trump's comments re Brexit, and so on
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This AfD is now disruptivecounter-productive, stopping the colloborative process dead in its tracks. IMO, the page should be renamed/merged to cover the much more notable protests with over 250,000 protestors. But that discussion cannot occur while this |IDONTLIKEIT nomination sits here.---&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: meets  and per Gatemansgc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: to Protests against Donald Trump#Trump Baby balloon for now. Then re-evaluate at a later date to determine  as it is far to soon to know that right now. Also from what I can tell there really has not been any substantial impact from it either, besides being another protest. Lastly yes it received significant coverage, but it's already dying down so  comes to mind
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING||WP:FART)

Comment: I was tempted to support a snow close because the nom almost entirely failed to provide a relevant policy-based rationale. Instead, they spent a good amount of their rationale insulting the creator. Most editors “know better” not to do that. |One-event does not apply and follow-up coverage exists, as demonstrated by above comments. The nom could/should have considered |alternatives to deletion, like merging, for a subject that obviously warrants mentioning in some form
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:ATD)

Comment: this has received large amounts of media coverage. Uses reliable sources that include the New York Times, BBC, and Washington Post. Definitely meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: per . Minor trivia at best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: meets  / ; there's already follow-on coverage such as https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/07/13/meet-the-brains-behind-the-trump-baby-balloon/?utm_term=.0e1bbbce354a "Meet the brains behind the ‘Trump Baby’ balloon", ''Washington Post''. Sufficient to anticipate lasting significance at this time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NEVENT)