Deletion of Boycott of The Ingraham Angle

Comment: This is getting ridiculous. This can easily be covered in existing articles and is an unnecessary fork. Also delete per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: to The Ingraham Angle article with mentions in the articles of David Hogg and Laura Ingraham. Wikipedia is not  but this has received substantial coverage with regards to the three articles mentioned
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: As of April 6th, there are 20 references (ie sourcing: not a problem). Does  apply? Point 2 says |Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events and this story has legs beyond one news cycle, not just a day or two, but weeks, with much back and forth (will Ingraham get fired? will advertisers go back to the show? -- these are ongoing developments). NOTNEWS discourages "routine news" such as announcements; the boycott isn't routine. NOTNEWS discourages original research; again, not the case. So NOTNEWS does not really apply here. It is not just a classic David and Goliath story, with the underdog (David Hogg) taking down the cyberbully (Laura Ingraham), but it has relevance for cyberbullying in general, for advertisers, as part of the culture war, and politics. Subject is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:XY, , . Renominate in a week
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID||WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: This is a separate, necessary sidebar requiring explanation beyond the articles of the two named individuals involved making merging inappropriate.  The fact that it even had a temporary change in the programming means this was an effective boycott, obviously the long term effects to be determined.  Google is loaded with |Reliable sources reporting on the boycott
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)