Deletion of 2012 Wikipedia blackout

Comment: without prejudice against a future merger. Let's see how this storyline develops in the media, but with the level of attention that it has already generated before the blackout, the topic easily passes  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I created this on the basis that someone was going to, so it might as well start off with good habits (sources). For what it's worth, I wouldn't object to this being moved, and its scope expanded to incorporate all of the action taking place on the 18th. As for the it hasn't even happened yet part, the decision has already been made, and the decision alone has attracted |significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: and  the deletion creator. notable event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:trout)

Comment: It's aready being reported http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/web/?q=wikipedia%20blackout worldwide (although not currently by the BBC {{smiley|angry}}). Deletion now only to re-create the article after the event is beaurocracy for the sake of beaurocracy. As the first action of it's kind ever taken by us, the Wikipedia community, it will be a significant historic event which already easily passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: We've somehow gotten lost in the presumption that this |future event will be notable, when the bill being protested is already sunk, and that we can cover this neutrally.  We're using sources which are primarily based on the press release.  I just removed the WMF press release from the article; why is it that an article about a future event is now allowed to have a press release in it.  We've got a screenshot of the proposed design, which will inevitable be different from the real thing. This is how we loose our neutrality.  This article promotes our blackout
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: per  or '''Rename''' per
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=wikipedia+blackout&oq=wikipedia+blackout&aq=f&aqi=d1d-o1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1503l5153l0l5279l18l17l0l11l11l1l283l984l2.1.3l6l0 330 results on google news some of them important, like Yahoo news, ZNet. It didn't happened yet, but its already notable. If you guys want to delete the article and create it after the black out, you can. But its just a waste of time for everybody. Per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: Obviously |notable event.  BTW, someone should create another article for the blackout in general: SOPA blackout since Wikipedia isn't the only site doing a blackout. We don't appear to have one yet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: obvious violation of .  Article only shows one side of the issue
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment:  looks to exclude "routine" news events. The coverage this event is generating is clearly not routine -- indeed, the fact that, as the nom correctly states, it hasn't yet happened and is nonetheless getting massive coverage tends to suggest that this is not the type of routine news item that  excludes. The intentional 24 hour shutdown of a website with ~25 million daily visitors is not equivalent to "every single strike, boycott, or other act of protest." Indeed -- and I don't think this is me going all  -- we have List of strikes|quite a few articles on notable protest actions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: article passes , 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:EVENT)