Deletion of Basket of deplorables

Comment: as an obvious, in fact ''outrageous'', . Creating editor should be |trouted to within an inch of their life
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:TROUT)

Comment: with no strong position on a '''Redirect''') - I'm surprised to see so many experienced users supporting keeping this. Maybe deserves a brief mention in the campaign/candidacy articles because it ''has'' received coverage, of course, but Wikipedia is  and every news cycle "controversy"-of-the-week doesn't need a stand-alone article (/) when we have articles on the campaign, candidates, candidacies, elections, etc. Not opposed to recreation after the election, once lasting significance can be displayed, but it would really need a lot more to merit a stand-alone article. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOPAGE||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Obviously not sufficient for a standalone article, and this does smack of |inappropriate content forking. In general, it would be helpful if, during election season, we could resist the urge to create standalone articles about every partisan talking point. I would be fine with '''deleting''' this article; after all, anyone searching for "basket of deplorables" already knows all about this particular controversy. But maybe a merge is better since the subject arguably deserves brief mention in the campaign article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Absolute , a page meant to be a Hillary Clinton controversy. This material can and will be included on Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 once we have consensus on how to include it. There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 that this article's creator, {{u|E.M.Gregory}}, has been involved in, so this user knows that this is an inappropriate end around due to the slow moving discussion. A trout slap could be in order. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per . What Timothyjosephwood said
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Major incidents during a campaign, like all major incidents, can and regularly do pass  soon after they happen.  imho, this one already has already passed our notability tests at , which is why I started the article.  I will be back as time permits to continue to expand and source it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016.  Not enough "there" to support a stand-alone article.  The event can be mentioned in a paragraph in that article; there's no reason for this to be a stand-alone article, per 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: per . It may become notable in the future if it is proven it has had some long term effect of notability but until then, it's just speculation on a random quote which we can't have here at the moment per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:RECENT)

Comment: or '''Merge'''.  Developing issue.  Mr. Trump has used this in counterattack.  There is an ongoing development.  In any event, no compliance with efore
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)