Deletion of Trump administration migrant detentions

Comment: The subject meets , the article shows significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including comparison with other administrations. I believe it presents the information in a neutral manner, and if there are any questions about that, that is a matter of content not a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 1) topic easily passes  (60kB, 83 reliable sources including 15 academic ones). Merging it into Immigration detention in the United States (85kB, 104 sources) would result in  weight on this topic, so it's a valid . (2) Concerns were raised (as was ) about past administrations' doings, which have been addressed with a 800+ words section on Trump administration migrant detentions#Comparison with past administrations, with nine comparisons with Obama's, three to Bush Jr, two to Clinton, two to Reagan, one to Bush Sr, and one to Carter. (3) Concerns about {{tq|POV-y title}} can be addressed if someone actually suggests a better title, there's no need to delete the article if you can move it. Migrant detentions under the Trump administration? (4) I made attempts to discuss COATRACK/NPOV above, so I won't repeat them. I've taken steps to remedy the article based on concerns raised on this page, but I can't do more without explanations and specific examples of problematic parts
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:UNDUE||WP:SPINOFF||WP:NPOV)

Comment: It's not against a "neutral point of view" to write about a subject |people don't like. The article is long, well-cited, features photos, ''has an entire section comparing this to past administrations''. No coatrack issue here if the title of the article is "Trump administration migrant detentions" and that's what it covers. This is obviously an ongoing issue and we'd be lying if we pretended this hasn't garnered significant attention
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Changing my vote to keep after re-reading . Trump article being diverted off the parent seems to be okay so long as the multiple sources are presented neutrally. Some work remains to shore up the parent article to reflect past and present general trends
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF)

Comment: Adding all this information to the main article on migrant detentions would be . The rationale for deletion is completely bereft of any Wikipedia policy based arguments and is purely , as the subject of this article was widely covered in the news media and is notable.  so we don't need to protect Trump by limiting the number of articles about him. If the detentions under Obama were truly worthy of their own page then go and make one - that has no bearing on ''this'' page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOTCENSORED)