Deletion of Person, woman, man, camera, TV

Comment: per ; this incident is a part of history.  It feeds into Trump's insecurity and his violence and vindictiveness, in the same  way that being called 'bunker boy' provoked the Battle of Lafayette Square.  The Lafayette Square fence signs have been assembled by the Smithsonian because they are a part of a running physical, media, and political battle space.  .  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/2600:1700:CD40:3DB0:24F8:B68D:FA77:65E3|2600:1700:CD40:3DB0:24F8:B68D:FA77:65E3
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per , this nomination could have easily been left for a few weeks, there is coverage in reliable sources across multiple countries, and analysis of the reports and significance of the moment.  is an essay explainer and not a guideline or policy of Wikipedia. Whilst maybe there should have been a , let's see how it develops for a few months as suggested by others
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID||WP:RECENT||WP:DELAY)

Comment: per nomination and  - you know the drill, Trump says something bizarre, media covers it... Wikipedia is not a tabloid. See also the lack of depth in the coverage itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: Yeah, embarrassing and telling. But, not in an encyclopedia. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a (phrase) dictionary, especially for terms of novel conception (i.e. neologisms). Being the quotable of the day (or two) does not make it notable. Coverage generated in such a fashion is routine, just like for any top news item on any given day. I doubt anyone will |remember this in 10 years, although the general trend of Trump's mental capacities being questioned, and him bragging about his faculties, will be. The people who have found this article "useful" have only found it so because they are looking for the wrong things (news and dictionary) in Wikipedia. –&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT)

Comment: per , , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTTRIVIA)

Comment: The reasons given in several of the "delete" contributions above are unpersuasive. , and in particular its section , does not speak in favour of deleting articles. It's mostly not about creating or deleting articles but about avoiding undue focus on recent events in existing articles. Where it does mention deletion, it makes several points against it: "Still, these articles are valuable for future historical research."; "'''Just wait and see.''' Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball."; " Proper perspective requires ... the passage of time." Claiming that we already know that this currently highly notable phrase will not be notable in the future is not in line with these guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT||WP:10YT)

Comment: per ; historians of the future will thank us for documenting odd things like this - cf. Cheese-eating surrender monkeys
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Please consider the number of  !votes
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

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