Deletion of Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us

Comment: I believe the subject passes . I understand the calls for deletion/redirection based on . However, I think the broad range of coverage in American, British, and Australian media—not to mention the sheer number of people who have responded to the event—is enough that it meets  and . There's still a part of me that thinks the article might be a case of , since it's not really possible to evaluate the event's lasting significance before it has taken place, and I'm willing to reconsider my !vote after later discussion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTCRITERIA||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GEOSCOPE||WP:DIVERSE||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: See Wikipedia:RAPID.  This is a classic issue Wikipedia has: some breaking piece of news happens, and it's not clear whether it's a 15 minutes of fame deal that should be justly deleted as  or an actual event.  The solution is easy: just give it a little time.  If this event blows over, then merge it to Area 51, no big deal.  If this event actually happens, there'll already be an existing article to build off of.  Weirder, seemingly more trivial stuff has become real events worthy of articles before
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: into Area 51, not only per  and  but also because there's not much to write about it so it doesn't need an article.  This may change if incidents occur in relation to the joke
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: For all of the arguments about |foresight, the article *is* written to make clear both that the event hasn't happen yet and that its eventuality is uncertain. Can't help but think of article on 2020 United States presidential election—if the article is mostly about the media coverage and response, I think it's fine for now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: It's been suggested that it might pass , but I believe that is the incorrect standard to use, as the sources all make it clear that no actual event is being planned. It's just a joke.  ''As'' a joke, it's already faded out. Keeping the article would just be recentism and it would certainly be deleted six months from now when somebody brings it back to AFD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTCRIT)

Comment: as a meme which is only relevant to the Area 51 article, where it is already covered. There is no indication this has lasting |newsworthiness, it's just a |fad. We also cannot |anticipate it becoming newsworthy. (At best, it will become newsworthy when some folks do show up and discover trying to cross the desert is itself a |bad idea. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:TOOSOON||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:BADIDEA)

Comment: on the article but '''do not mention''' in Area 51 as this violates . The Facebook joke does not form a substantial part of the conspiracies around Area 51—rather, the joke is built upon the premise that millions of people are already familiar with much more significant conspiracy theories about the site. It is therefore |undue weight to have a section on it there
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: As I've so far counted (may be wrong), I see 31 '''keep / weak keep''' with 5 for '''keep or merge''', opposed to 18 for '''delete / merge / redirect''' (three categories combined). Other comments such as "neutral" omitted. I'm aware of , just wanted to point out a consensus seems to be building. Please let me know if my numbers are off
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDEM)

Comment: its a repetition of the comments above, but I agree that overwhelming coverage in the media allows for the article to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)