Deletion of MAGAkids incident

Comment: I have since revised my initial opinion on this matter and believe this incident is deserving of its own article.  The fact is this event happened when three separate groups - March for Life, Indigenous Peoples March, and the Black Israelite group - all came together and this incident occurred.  To say this event should be merged as a subset of the Indigenous Peoples March page to me goes against  because it would downplay this event's notability.  Most people's interest in this matter seems to comes from the incident itself, not that it occurred in conjunction with the Indigenous Peoples March
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Already mentioned briefly at another article" is not a good reason to delete a lengthy and well sourced article on a notable-in-itself topic. As the guy who |boldly forked the article from Indigenous Peoples March in the first place, I did so based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indigenous_Peoples_March#Propose_splitting_the_article attempts to discuss on the talk page first and also based on the fact that the crux of the incident did not actually occur '''during''' the IPM or in conjunction with the IPM.  I think the topic is clearly notable based on mainstream media coverage (19 million ghits for https://www.google.com/search?q=covington+catholic+incident&num=100 Covington Catholic Incident), and I think its notability derives from the clash and subsequent culture war implications rather than from the Indigenous Peoples March. The event is "already covered" not only by the Indigenous People's March, but also by the March for Life, Covington Catholic High School, Black Hebrew Israelites, and other wikipedia articles. The IPM article was bloated with incident specific details / reactions unrelated to the planning and conduct of the Indigenous People's March. Merging to any one of these articles (Indigenous People's March, March for Life, Covington Catholic High School, or Black Hebrew Israelites) would bloat it up with incident specific details and media interpretations at the expense of otherwise distinct and clear articles. This is a textbook |Recentism editor disagreement, since some people think it is obviously notable and others think it is a news blip. In any case, it is incontrovertably attracting a lot of buzz on we won't know whether it will stick... but in the mean time there is a lot of reliable source coverage trying to dissect what exactly happened -- something that Wikipedia is extremely good at assimilating. Again, refer to  for some thoughts on what to do in this case. I am not committed to the name, but I could not think of a better one that maintained .   Peace and WikiLove
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD||WP:RECENT||WP:RECENT||WP:NPOV)