Deletion of Barack Obama's visit to India

Comment: All of the justifications I have seen thus far as to why this is not a routine are not convincing. This was the ''sixth'' visit by a U.S. president to India? So what? The media likes to speculate about the implications of routine trips. Many of the same things were said about Barack Obama's 2010 visit to China, which was arguably more significant, but the article was still OBAMA'S VISIT TO CHINA|redirected to Sino-American relations. For those arguing that the United States' support for India's UNSC bid is significant (despite its support for many other countries' bids, and the fact that it's not likely to lead anywhere), that goes into the UNSC reform article. All significant trade deals go in the economy articles, all key developments go into the India-United States article, one paragraph at most. The rest is |news
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: or '''Keep''' - I would recommend merging this article into U.S.-India relations (not per , as this is not "routine news"--he is the 6th president to do so). However, since the main purpose of this visit was to improve American-Indian relationships, it seems to overlap in coverage with U.S.-India relations. See Wikipedia:Merge reason two: "overlap". If it cannot be merged, then I would ask that it be kept since it does have some notability
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to Barack Obama trip to Asia 2010 since he'll be going to 3 additional countries (Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan), not just India.  is not applicable here, since this is not a routine story such as the weather / business / sports / crime reports, which is what  is intended for
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The notability of the topic is demonstrated by the independent sources, not by the personal opinions of editors voting here.  Whether the topic generates enough content to stand by itself or be merged into wider articles about Obama, USA or India is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our |editing policy.  Deletion would be disruptive in that it would destroy a useful search link and the sourced content which we have already
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: with a future possibility of merging as per several suggestions above. This is "news," true, but so were the 2010 Copiapó mining accident|Chilean mine rescue, the Gaza flotilla raid, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This trip is a noteworthy event that has generated significant international controversy and discussion. Here is the relevant text from : "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." So, there shouldn't be an emphasis on updating the article in a breaking-news fashion. However, this is ''not'' "routine reporting" on trivial subjects, and it ''is'' an event with enduring notability. The controversy ($200m a day etc etc) may not have enduring notability, but the article hardly touches the controversy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to timeline and '''delete''' the rest, as Erpert suggested. This is just another visit, and per , this article should be deleted
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Agree with Wikireader41's reference to  and Ginkgo100's analysis. I would have said the page could have been merged into India – United States relations but that page is already long enough and merging the information from this page would inevitably result in cited material being inappropriately trimmed. Therefore, I think it fits nicely into its own page as a subtopic of those relations. Plenty of well cited material and a visit that has already proven important historically in terms of India's relations with the United Nations easily satisfy basic notability requirements
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BREAKING)

Comment: as ,  and  are all relevant here. This is trivial, however ego-stroking India may find it at the moment. Nixon's visit to China was a crore times more important
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (:WP:NOTNEWS||:WP:UNDUE||:WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: or '''Merge''' to either the timeline of Obama's presidency or US-India relations as there is nothing of any enduring significance here yet, and anything that might happen is only notable with the help of a rystal|crystal ball
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: This is exactly the sort of tabloidy nonsense that |NOTNEWS applies to. And of course there's the likelyhood that the article will become a coatrack for the idiotic talking point floating around about the trip costing $260 million per day
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: the proof's in the pudding. Obama's now in South Korea and there's absolutely zero news articles today about his India trip. Clearly demonstrates that whatever coverage there was was merely . To Wikireader, repeatedly saying "there is NO way in hell" this article will be deleted is, at best, a failure to AGF on the part of the delete camp and possibly the closing admin; at worst it's uncivil. Sure, it sucks to have an article you worked on nominated for deletion. But attacking the opposing camp just for that is clearly doing no one any favours
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: Visits by heads of state/government are routine. There's nothing exceptionally notable about this visist any more than there is about Dick Cheney's health or Michelle Obama's arms. Contrary to popular opinion, not everything Obama does is notable. This would be worthy of maybe two or three lines in Barack Obama. Any more would be |recentism and |undue weight and the redirect would not be plausible enough to survive |CSD R3. Tl;dr? Fails ,  (both notability guidelines) and  (a policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:UNDUE||WP:R3||WP:GNG||WP:EVENT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS; there is nothing significant or notable about this tour. Nothing unusual about a head of state conducting a tour of other countries, happens all the time. Per  (my emphasis): "Routine kinds of news events (including most ... ''political news'' ...) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually ''not notable'' unless something further gives them additional enduring significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: Per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)