Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Politics. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Politics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list also includes a sublist or sublists of deletions related to Politicians.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Politics AfDs

Scan for politicians AfDs
Scan for politics Prods
Scan for politicians Prods
Scan for politics and government template TfDs

Related deletion sorting: Conservatism; Libertarianism

Politics

Opinion polling on the Lee Jae-myung presidency

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot see that this is a notable enough topic for a standalone article, altho there may be some content worth merging TheLongTone (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lee Jae-myung entry--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student Assembly Against Racism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced for 20 years and no hits in google news. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both of these - Two IP articles involved, both created from the University of Livepool. This one is un-sourced, created by an IP in 2004, has only one sentence. You might also Delete National Assembly Against Racism from 2005. It was also created by an IP. Appears to be the same thing. — Maile (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Mass (pressure group)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1 unverifiable source provided in 18 years of article existence. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searching found nothing relating to a British political group to support this article. this IMDb link to a summary of the documentary (which was from 1986 not 5) shows that it did exist but I don't think it is notable. Moritoriko (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any media coverage, other than the programme listing on BBC Genome. p166 of Critical Mass: Bicycling's Defiant Celebration (search for "Ramsgate") has non-independent recollections from two people associated with the group: Ramsgate Critical Massers [...] were enthusiastic campaigners for environmental and social issues, and soon became well known in the East Kent area, even appearing on the local TV news. [... Aubi Fadra] was the secretary of the Ramsgate Flat Earth Society and Critical Mass from 1983/7. But searching for those names didn't find anything more. Adam Sampson (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rockland County recount

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is based on misinformation that's trending on social media; it relies on a bunch of sketchy sources published in the past few days that uncritically repeat false claims of election fraud. (The "zero votes" thing is a result of Orthodox Jewish bloc voting. [1]) I could find one okay source, which is Snopes examining the claims [2], but one source is not enough to justify an article, especially since Snopes devotes a lot of coverage to ongoing viral claims that have no enduring notability. It might be possible to keep the article if more good sources emerge that properly characterize the lawsuit and/or the social media trend, but it would still need WP:TNT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New York. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion, per nom. Even if the sources were reliable, the topic does not merit its own article. Maybe a small subsection under the 2024 elections page, if anything. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article seems to have been created to advocate for a conspiracy theory("As a result of this irregularity", framing of significance of discovering proceeding) and even if that conspiracy theory were true(which nothing seems to suggest) it would likely not warrant it's own page. Originalcola (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A judge has examined the evidence and concluded that the investigation should move forward. To delete this would suggest the so called conspiracy is most likely true, so do not delete article! How many suits and recounts did Trump get in 2016? Why would he be worried about this one? 2600:1700:EE56:1190:ACE1:3A77:2387:86A7 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite misleading to state that a judge has concluded that discovery should move forward as proof of the legitimacy of the claims made or to claim it as endorsing an investigation. At the time of writing it doesn't seem that there even is any publicly available evidence to suggest that discovery is occurring.^[1] I'm not sure how deleting this article would suggest the claims made are true, and articles can still delete even if they are factually accurate if the subject isn't notable(this is literally just a recount of a few hundred votes that hasn't received much coverage for reliable sources and will not change the results for that county). I'm not sure what your point is about 2016 but there is only one recount page for that presidential race. Even statewide recounts for that election don't have their own pages, let alone county. Originalcola (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we are not X nor Bluesky nor Threads and the sourcing is a grab-bag of every deprecated source available: Newsweek, NewsWire, Indian media, local newspapers from another state, you name it. The only reliable source is Snopes, and it's still investigating the matter. The standard for New York law to allow discovery is extremely low; it's almost meaningless. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rogat Loeb

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article only contains 1 source and makes lots of uncited claims. Not finding coverage to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, California, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated to the wikipedia editor who originally asked some questions on the site, it was created by a fan. I then added some updates, for instance It said I was writing regularly for Huffington Post. They published maybe 100 articles, but I'm not currently writing so I changed it to past tense. Part of the challenges is that I left writing for 12 years to run two nonprofits I founded where I wasn't able to write political pieces without making them politically vulnerable. So there are a ton of articles about me if you search "Paul Rogat Loeb" in Google or another search engine. But not all of them have the updated information because most are before 2012. So I could go through various statements in the wikisource and add links, but it would be time consuming. And there aren't public numbers on say how many copies I've sold, though there are probably articles among those for instance covering my lectures, that mention how many were sold at that time the articles were written.

So that's why I linked to the website.

Can you suggest how best to proceed without spending endless hours, like searching every publication and creating a separate link? I really value Wikipedia and would like to have that listing remain.

Thanks Paul Rogat Loeb PaulLoeb (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Ali Karim

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pundit whose article is primarily sourced to pieces written by themself, and is really only known for WP:ONEEVENT – the controversial filing a report for sedition against the Chief Minister Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT and the subject is the author of several of the sources cited - that makes the sources more of primary sources than independent secondary sources. Patre23 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. He's 22 years old. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

America Party

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper to report everything that happens with Musk and Trump. Wait until he actually takes steps to create anything. Anyone can say they want to create a new party. And besides, he's already expressed "regret" over his criticisms of Trump. Wowzers122 (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete no SIGCOV and no actual entity that exists yet. We are not here to document every tweet of these people. --hroest 20:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Sal2100 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ephemeral trivia. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps see if this info fits well in the article about Musk, although if there are no further developments, then it is probably trivial. Ike9898 (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another pipe dream from someone with a lot of things that remain exactly that. Nathannah • 📮 22:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Tennessee's 7th congressional district special election

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL BALL & WP:TOO SOON: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 New York's 21st congressional district special election, it was stated that we shouldn't be creating full articles for special elections in which the current representative's resignation is contingent on a future event taking place. We do not know when Rep. Green will retire or if the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will pass at all. We don't even know if the special election would take place in 2025. What happens if the bill doesn't pass? There's too much speculation into the creation of this article. I'm just not sure where we'd move the information about declared candidates. I also believe that we should make this type of prohibition a formal policy, if this deletion takes place. AG202 (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Tennessee. AG202 (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or keep

It is stated that Green will retire very soon, and there are already declared candidates. I think we should keep or draftify the article until he actually resigns, then put the article back up afterwards. GatewayPolitics (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I agree with the nom, but it seems useful to keep as a draft to continue improving until Green officially resigns. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per GatewayPolitics. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 08:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also support draftifying FWIW. AG202 (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep draft per everyone above. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Per GatewayPolitics & others. Agree with nom. that the subject fails WP:CRYSTAL BALL & WP:TOO SOON. Sal2100 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify has become the consensus. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per above. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 23:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom.

nf utvol (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Oregon Commissioner of Labor election

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. This election is scheduled to take place in November 2026. At present, no reliable and independent sources are available regarding the event and possible candidates. The article may be recreated once sufficient verifiable information becomes available. If not deleted, the article could be redirected to 2026 Oregon elections for the time being. QEnigma (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, United States of America, and Oregon. QEnigma (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon with no declared candidate. I oppose redirecting to encourage article creation when time comes Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/WP:TOOSOON, zero WP:SIGCOV. GoldRomean (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading through the resources listed here, I understand the justification for deleting this article. As the article's author, I support its removal. Thank you! Yompi20 (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAHA Commission

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's unclear how this commission is independently notable of the main subject, that being the Make America Healthy Again campaign. This article barely gives any information about the commission, other than its establishment and a report published by it. The establishment of the commission isn't even mentioned on the main MAHA article, so it can be argued that this article existing as a separate (short stub-length) entity is detracting information from readers who want to learn about the subject. None of the cited sources provide significant coverage of the commission itself, aside from wider coverage of the MAHA campaign.

As the notability of an organisation is not inherited from the main subject, I think this article should be deleted and its relevant contents merged into the main article on the MAHA campaign. Grnrchst (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with MAHA report in either direction. Reywas92^Talk 15:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Make America Healthy Again per nom, page is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. MAHA report should probably be merged as well. मल्ल (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that the report should probably be merged into the main article too. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Make America Healthy Again, not really enough notability on its own. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unparty: The Consensus-Building Party

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:ORG: minor political party that ran in one election (in 2013) and garnered less than 0.01% of the vote. No significant coverage in reliable sources; coverage in general is limited to routine electoral coverage by local news outlets where their two candidates ran in 2013. Yue🌙 19:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 19:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 British Columbia general election as an ATD. Fails WP:ORG. मल्ल (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NPOL. It ran in a single election and won nothing. There is not much media coverage of this party to meet notability threshold. Patre23 (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, no indication of notability and no in depth coverage. --hroest 18:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada Concept

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge / redirect to Western alienation, per WP:ORG. Minor, fringe political party that ran in a few elections and by-elections, garnering less than 1% each time. No significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources available online, or in BC provincial archives that I could find. Perhaps it warrants a mention at Western alienation if reliable source(s) are found, but the topic has not had sources to demonstrate standalone notability in over two decades. Yue🌙 19:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 19:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Western Canada Concept no longer has a presence of any significance in Canadian politics (thankfully), but it attracted a significant amount of media coverage in the 1980s and early 1990s, and it's been given non-trivial mention in several published works on Canadian politics. (A search for the phrase "Western Canada Concept" on the Internet Archive's "Search Text Contents" function yields 632 text sources. Even accounting for some duplication, that's a credible amount.)
Many organizations that were notable in the pre-internet age don't have much of an online presence now; this is one of them. CJCurrie (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I should mention that the Western Canada Concept actually won a seat in the Alberta provincial legislature in a 1982 by-election. (For context, see Olds-Didsbury and Gordon Kesler.) It's not correct to say they "garnered less than 1% each time." CJCurrie (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with CJCurrie, there is significant coverage. Actually a decent amount of coverage online too, from what I can see. I've added a few sources, one of which would count for notability. Alongside the sources on archive.com identified above, there are also 2069 hits for "Western Canada Concept" on NewspaperARCHIVE.com and 13 on JSTOR.//Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The party did elect an Alberta MLA in a byelection, so it was definitely mainstream for a year or so before becoming a fringe movement again. Indefatigable (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They did elect a candidate and had significant coverage with over 2000 newspaper articles mentioning them, so this seems clearly notable. --hroest 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Third-place finish in the 1982 Alberta election. In addition, "Western Canada Concept" is vague enough that a reader might want more insight. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This meets WP:GNG. As previously stated, placed third in the 1982 Alberta election and was not fringe at that time. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of Soviets from Albania

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An obvious WP:CFORK of Albanian–Soviet split combined with parts of Vlora incident, which was created by the same sockpuppet account and which itself is a CFORKy take on Albanian–Soviet split. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is indeed a significant overlap. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's rationale. I don't think a redirect is necessary either given the terminology does not see common usage. Yue🌙 19:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council election

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. This election is scheduled to take place in May 2026. At present, no reliable and independent sources are available regarding the event and possible candidates. The article may be recreated once sufficient verifiable information becomes available. If not deleted, the article could be redirected to Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council elections for the time being. QEnigma (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: list of Events-related deletion discussions, Politics, and England. QEnigma (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. The Walsall Council page clearly states that this election is due to take place in 2026. "The next local election will take place on 7 May 2026. It will be an "all-out" election, meaning every council seat can be contested." - Upcoming elections and legal notices | Walsall Council Owen J Webster (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@O17A03:This is a primary source. While primary sources may be used to verify certain content, maintaining an article requires the support of secondary sources that are both reliable and independent. At present, no such sources are available. That is why this article should either be deleted or redirected, as stated above. QEnigma (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is mention of the 2026 local election in the following source: https://www.expressandstar.com/news/politics/2025/06/02/walsall-councillors-bold-proposal-to-reform-local-election-system/. As referenced in the article. Owen J Webster (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@O17A03: Please refer to the criteria listed in WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT and also to WP:ROUTINE. QEnigma (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is what more evidence do you need other than the official council site stating that elections are going ahead. Owen J Webster (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@O17A03: Reliable and independent sources on declared candidates, actual coverage of the upcoming election other than for a single primary source, etc. QEnigma (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. No coverage of the actual election Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant coverage for the 2026 local election, but the '2026 United Kingdom local elections' wiki page is active. Walsall Council have already mentioned this on their 'upcoming elections' page. Upcoming elections and legal notices | Walsall Council Owen J Webster (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 14147

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am utterly baffled as to why this Trumpcruft needs its own article. It has barely anything to it. It doesn't have any significant coverage in reliable sources, even from the time of its signing and publication, and it certainly does not have any enduring notability. We already have a very lengthy list of executive orders. We do not need a wee stub for every single one, no matter how insignificant (and this one is so clearly insignificant). Grnrchst (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump Only because it's the first one signed. Nathannah • 📮 02:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump as an ATD. This is clearly non-notable Trumpcruft with no notable sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's memecoin dinner

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another excellent example of Trumpcruft we have here. An article about a dinner.... Half of this article isn't even about the dinner, and instead provides context about Trump's memecoin or pithy reactions from the US opposition and comedians. Almost all of the sources are from around the day of the event, with little to nothing since then. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this was clearly not a significant event with enduring notability. The content worth keeping (if there is any) could easily be merged into the main article about $Trump. Grnrchst (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Cryptocurrency, Politics, Business, Economics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Christ, yes: not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. I don't see why this is notable. — Czello ^(music) 21:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy of an entire article and the topic can be mentioned at $Trump as suggested. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to $Trump per reasons above. Half the article is just giving general background on the memecoin and is not actually about the dinner; the event itself was not very notable. The information about the dinner should be in a section in the memecoin's article and not its own article per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. 2601:402:680:1270:C174:D122:219:19D7 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to $Trump per 2601; this is more background on the coin than about what was not an official state event. Nathannah • 📮 02:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to $Trump: Per the nominator, The content worth keeping (if there is any) could easily be merged into the main article about $Trump. Per WP:ATD-M, we should merge rather than delete when we can. Outside the lede and the 'Trump cryptocurrencies' sub-section, I think that there is sufficient content that could be moved to $Trump. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - without context, it's just a meal; with context, It's number 35. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to $Trump per Super Goku V. KnowDeath (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to $Trump seems best. Moondragon21 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's letter to Ali Khamenei

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has to be one of the best examples of Trumpcruft on Wikipedia. This is article is about a single letter, sent a few months ago. I held off nominating this article for deletion when it was first created, but it's been enough time now that I think it's clear it does not have enduring notability by itself; it has not received any extensive coverage since it was sent. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this was not a significant event. Any information worth keeping can easily be merged into the article on the 2025 United States–Iran negotiations (a subject that does have a more clearly enduring notability). Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Literature, Politics, Iran, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. No reason this letter needs its own article. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested. No need for a separate article. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only if we have WP:RS, but a merge is more preferable to avoid WP:CFORK happening. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep According to WP:NOMERGE, articles that are merged should not be excessively lengthy. Conversely, if an article has the potential for expansion, it should not be deleted. The article 2025 United States–Iran negotiations is lengthy and has the potential for further development. Also, the article about Trump's letter to Ayatollah Khamenei is quite well-known. It is a letter between two important and well-known people. Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Many years have passed since this article was published.GolsaGolsa (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Probably yes, but don't WP:OTHERSTUFF please. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This letter has no notability independent of the greater scope article. A sentence or two about the letter in 2025 United States–Iran negotiations would suffice. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. It was the starting point for the negotiations. If it is merged, and a redirect is created, all original information in this article is saved (through History). If it is deleted, everything is gone. PS Just to be clear, if it is not merged, then Keep! Lova Falk (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This can be covered in 3-4 sentences on the main page. No WP:PAGELENGTH concerns due to the minimal amount of net new content. Longhornsg (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 78.81.123.235 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities Working Group

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Once of hundreds of working groups under the United States National Security Council over decades. Worth a line in the parent article, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Would suggest merging to the main article, but the main article does not mention the working groups at all. Nayyn (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Council Deputies Committee

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to United_States_National_Security_Council#Deputies_Committee, where it's already covered. WP:REDUNDANT Longhornsg (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merav Ceren

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL. The United States National Security Council employs almost 400 staffers, including numerous directors at Ceren's level. Many NSC staffers, including her former boss Eric Trager, a senior director, who has far more significant policy impact, don't even have an article. Coverage of Ceren is primarily due to a short-lived media controversy, not for enduring or substantive contributions to public policy. Routine job appointments or involvement in transient news cycles do not establish lasting encyclopedic notability, especially for a director who was in the job for 2 months. If anything, a case of WP:BLP1E for the controversy around her appointment. Longhornsg (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Israel, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Good point about Trager, perhaps you could help develop that page. I think you under estimate Merav's contribution to public policy.Leutha (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trager now has an article. He's notable under WP:NAUTHOR. Still no policy-based argument for Ceren. Longhornsg (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very briefly held a mid-level position and there was a debate around that. Not right to build an article from there. gidonb (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Ealing London Borough Council election

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. This election is scheduled to take place in May 2026. At present, no reliable and independent sources are available regarding the event and possible candidates. The article may be recreated once sufficient verifiable information becomes available. If not deleted, the article could be redirected to Ealing London Borough Council elections for the time being. QEnigma (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. QEnigma (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ealing London Borough Council elections for now. User:Moondragon21 (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps it was a bit early, but it feels a bit of a waste of energy and work to delete it. Perhaps Redirect Kepleo123 (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Election is happening within the next year; article is well-written with information currently available. It wouldn't benefit Wikipedia in any way to remove the existing content only to reinstate it in a few months' time. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chessrat: No reliable, independent sources have been cited. The election may take place next year but it is still WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL if no secondary sources are available. QEnigma (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has five citations.

This sort of thing happens all the time for upcoming elections– someone writes an article on the election in question, someone else tries to get the article deleted, the attempt fails. It ~ould be a far more productive use of time to develop this article and similar articles. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chessrat: With regards to your comment on a well written article, it appears that most of the content including some of the references have been copied from 2022 Ealing London Borough Council election but no attribution given. Please note Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). QEnigma (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody has done so already, I have now added this attribution to the talk page. Thanks for pointing it out! Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Or trainwreck, take your pick. But consensus is not going to emerge while this was so fresh even disregarding SPAs. Star Mississippi 15:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. While their buisness relationship has been publicized a lot, this is a common thread with Trump-related people, and this probably fails WP:ROUTINE as well. We don’t have Donald Trump–Mike Pence feud after their January 6th fallout, so I don’t see why this deserves an exception. This could easily fit better in individual sections such as Politics of Elon Musk. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This is not comparable to the Pence feud. There are implications to this which are becoming apparent as this discussion is occurring; Musk will decommission the SpaceX Dragon, which will affect the operations of the International Space Station. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: ElijahPepe (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SpaceX Dragon is an example of how we don't know the real implications. Musk appears to have backed off on that topic already, meaning that was a threat that lasted hours. These are impulsive public figures. Dflovett (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further note that the article creator has now !voted to redirect this article, acknowledging that it does not meet our notability guidelines. Per this comment, it appears they were also previously sanctioned by the community for rapidly creating problematic articles about current events, a concern that I and many other editors have raised in the past. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you've already been told, the opinions of the original creator do not hold greater weight. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 23:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t have Donald Trump–Mike Pence feud (why?), but a Category:Hip-hop feuds and several related feud articles like the Taylor Swift–Kanye West feud and Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud. Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable conflict between the richest man in the world and the leader of the most powerful country 2603:9000:BC00:149E:6C68:8489:407A:C7CF (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, even before I typed "Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud" into the Wikipedia search bar (can't believe I guessed the exact title!), I somehow already knew that it would have been created by ElijahPepe. As always, this is WP:TOOSOON — wait to see where the conflict goes, then apply the WP:10Y test and consider whether WP:NOPAGE applies. For now, delete. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how the creator of an article is relevant. WP:NPA applies. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make a personal attack; falsely accusing another editor of making a personal attack could be itself considered a personal attack. Calling out another editor for disruptive behavior, even if they may be acting in good faith, is not incivil. Although I usually refrain from calling out editors' past misbehavior, you have a history of prematurely creating problematic articles when notability has not been established; despite innumerable AfDs, you appear to not have learned from these past mistakes. This is troublesome, and other !voters must be aware of this context. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this context is important. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, just take a look at their talk page and you'll understand what I'm talking about ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He didn’t say that you made a personal attack, nor even insinuate it. elijahpepe merely pointed out that the identity of the article’s creator is irrelevant to the AfD discussion, which I think is fair. I say keep; WP:TOOSOON is almost always subjective and therefore not a useful heuristic here (maybe ever). No reasonable person would call WP:TOOSOON if a major political figure had just died, because there’s a reasonable (but subjective) assumption that the event will become noteworthy. We document current events as though we are our future selves looking backwards. If this turns out to be a nothingburger, then scrap it. Getabucket (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They wrote, "WP:NPA applies." NPA stands for "no personal attacks", in reference to our policy that prohibits petty insults and disparaging remarks, which I did not engage in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I missed that, totally my mistake. Getabucket (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all" should be clear enough. Selbsportrait (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That merely suggests that the safest way to avoid making personal attacks is to avoid referencing editors' behavior altogether, not that any reference to an editor's behavior is likely a personal attack. I agree with that statement and do generally avoid referencing editors' behavior, but in this AfD, I made an exception because I felt it was relevant context and made sure to frame it in a neutral, factual manner. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logical fallacies: The argument uses an ad hominem fallacy by dismissing the article due to its editor (ElijahPepe) rather than its content. It misapplies WP:TOOSOON by claiming the topic is too recent without evidence of insufficient sourcing or lasting significance. Finally, it assumes WP:NOPAGE/10Y apply without proving the feud lacks verifiable notability, relying on bias over policy. Rosa Olmos (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While AfD nominator is probably formally right, you just need to read the room. It's probably one of the most important events in the 2025. It ~~dominated~~ paralysed all the world news. In just a week, the article about this event will be huge. Flamekinzealot (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid keep reason. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is way more notable. The media is treating it as such. The Trump-Pence relationship is part of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. This is something completely different. The senior advisor to the president is basically alleging the president is a pedophile, with a huge reaction! Personisinsterest (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SUSTAINED: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It might be too soon to delete this since this will surely become more notable in the coming days. Looking up Elon Musk shows me a bunch of reporting from multiple RSs and I'm also sure that this will drag on for a while (e.g. Trump sues Elon Musk for defamation because of his Epstein tweet or something) Laura240406 (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems premature and too much of a newsy article Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 21:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes all 4 aspects of Wikipedia:NOTNEWS, and Passes Wikipedia:ROUTINE, as this event has significant coverage in Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Zzendaya (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The activities in the Article are definitely noteworthy, but it remains to be seen how it'll all end up playing out. If this all dies down in a few days it can be merged into another Elon Musk-related page. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 21:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The difference in scope between the Trump-Pence feud and this is vast. Musk and his circle are as deeply entrenched in the executive branch as Trump and his cabinet, whether we like it or not. Should the article have been created so hastily? I don't think so. Should it be removed entirely? I wouldn't. Stick a rapidly developing news template at the top and keep the article updated with current information as the story develops. anchovy ^TALK⁄_CONT 21:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way WP:TOOSOON. Tomorrow it could disappear or turn into a duel. Patience. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON: "For an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources." Though facts are still emerging, reliable secondary sources are reporting on the subject. anchovy ^TALK⁄_CONT 21:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is a WP:BLP and wild accusations are thrown about which may or may not be true. Related pertinent facts have yet to emerge. WP:NODEADLINE O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. anchovy ^TALK⁄_CONT 22:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anchovyx: Sources aren't secondary just based on where they're published. A source can be both primary and secondary. For example, a news article that is mostly just reporting on a current event, with a sentence of analysis/interpretation, is still primarily a primary source. The secondary coverage (that sentence) is not "significant coverage". You cannot call the entire article secondary just because it has one sentence/paragraph of secondary (analysis/interpretation) in it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to a section within Political activities of Elon Musk. That article is too short to require a spin-off and this event is unlikely to have lasting notability on its own. satkara❈talk 21:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This will surely be kept because everything involving Trump is presumed notable. But geez folks. Let's at least let the ink dry on the sources before we need an article to exactly match the news cycle. GMG ^talk 21:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this, unfortunately, is a very possible outcome. I think the only way to fix this problem is to have some sort of restriction like WP:ECR on AfDs regarding current events. Too many inexperienced, drive-by editors too often rush to !vote to "save" these types of problematic articles because they are unaware that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, not a source of breaking news, and creating articles before notability is established is putting the cart before the horse. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo and InfiniteNexus: do you think perhaps something should be added to WP:TRUMPCRUFT about specifically the interconnect between RECENT and NOTNEWS and things related to Trump? The closest thing now is the "FAQ" of "Look at all of the sources covering this topic, it is too notable!". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great essay. Wouldn't be a bad idea. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An essay with WP:TDS. Hard pass. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm predisposed to a narrow read of WP:NOTNEWS, but even so this minor feud documenting the controversy of the day has only a very small likelihood of meeting WP:SUSTAINED. I'd propose a merge/redirect to One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but others may suggest a better target. (Satkara's suggestion of Political activities of Elon Musk could also work.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd also support an upmerge to a section in a new article with a wider topic. Something like Political alliance between Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's probably too early to see if this fails WP:NOTNEWS as the implications of this for the 2026 elections and 2028 elections if this is significant and long lasting will be profound. Musk has tremendous financial capacity and this is a broader schism between the techno-libertarian right (Musk) and the populist right (Trump)

For now I am leading towards Week Keep as this article can always be deleted if this is not a long lasting and sustained conflict. Nkulasingham (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zzendaya. Deleting now is just going to trigger a WP:REFUND a couple days later; this is going to drag out for a while. –Fredddie ™ 22:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, going into this I was pretty sure that I would be on the "Delete" side but after going through the coverage I'm leaning the other way... I hadn't heard anything about this but it does appear to have gotten a surprising amount of significant coverage. That being said I don't think covering the same material at One Big Beautiful Bill Act and/or Political activities of Elon Musk etc would be the end of the world (especially if the "feud" just fizzles out) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though in my view any resolution shouldn't be done yet. This feels like its firmly stepping into the type of stuff WP:RAPID recommends against. Etatrisy (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BREAKING until we have some idea about WP:LASTING. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per basically every other !vote before mine. The "keep" !votes are saying it meets NOTNEWS... when it doesn't. We don't (and can't) predict whether it's going to be lasting at all, and also the coverage about it is routine primary source journalism. By definition there aren't secondary sources at this point for a feud that has only come into the public eye in the last 24 hours. If/when there are secondary sources - such as large investigative journalism, rather than just reporting the news - WP:REFUND is that way (points). It is not a valid excuse that a REFUND may be merited in the future. As a distant second I would be okay with this being draftified in a userspace or in the Draft: space so it (and its history) can be maintained, to help placate the people claiming REFUND is too hard for them (I don't see any other reason "we may need to REFUND it" is a valid argument). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to fall into any of the four categories of content which NOTNEWS advises against, none of that is routine coverage, and "Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Your policy analysis is just weak. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrity gossip and diaries. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. The feud may result in impacts to specific programs/services, and those can be covered in their respective articles. Further, point 2 specifies enduring notability of the event. There is no evidence this will be enduring in its notability, and it's not appropriate to assume it will be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither gossip or diary style coverage. We can't assume either way on enduring notability, we don't have a crystal ball. If in a few years there is no more coverage than what we have now you are welcome to come back and delete it on lack of enduring coverage grounds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to assume either way. If there isn't evidence it's notable now, then it should be deleted now. If significant secondary coverage isn't available now, it should be deleted now. If such coverage comes out later, WP:REFUND is that way (points). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been repeatedly provided with sources that other people believe are secondary and significant, you disagree... You're just beating a dead horse at this point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say "I think (random link) is secondary" without explaining it. I've made clear (in my initial !vote, for that matter) that the sources and explanations so far do not actually prove the sources are significant secondary coverage. You're free to provide more/different sources/explanation to change my mind. But if you can't, this sort of "I still disagree with you" comment is not helpful to anyone - be it a person reviewing this discussion, or the eventual closer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say "I think (random link) is not significant secondary coverage without explaining it.

You've made clear that you're just going to go for WP:ICANTHEARYOU Selbsportrait (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on the one making the claim. You're the one claiming there is significant secondary coverage. So, quote it here. Quote what you think is significant secondary coverage - and I'll either change my view or I'll explain to you why it's either not significant or not secondary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you accept that each participant needs to support the claims they make.

That's progress. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one making the claim. It's not possible to prove a negative. I can't quote something that shows there is no analysis/interpretation. You have the burden to prove there is significant analysis/interpretation, because you're the one making the claim that it exists. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't prove a negative (which is false, e.g. Gödel's theorem), then how will you ever be able to support your claim that it's not significant?

Denial ain't that powerful. Selbsportrait (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I wrote this above as a reply but I'll repeat it here for visibility. Too many editors appear to not realize that Wikipedia is a "lagging indicator of notability", and rushing to create articles before notability is established is putting the cart before the horse; it should the other way around. WP:DELAY explains why we should not rush to create articles based on breaking news: we do not predict whether a topic "might" be notable in the future; we evaluate whether it is currently notable. If a topic that previously not notable later becomes notable, it can and will be reinstated then; however, until then, creating a standalone article is jumping the gun. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Riposte97 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTA much? Thegoofhere (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also look at WP:RAPID Laura240406 (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, is there a policy about rushing to create articles about breaking news events? Some1 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking for WP:DELAY, Some1 Thegoofhere (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed and described above by User:Zzendaya. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Irrespective of problems this article has with WP:TOOSOON right now, I do not expect them to still be problems by the time this discussion closes; not at the rate things are happening. My biggest problem with the article is large parts of it should be rewritten to better match Wikipedia writing standards but that's not cause for deletion. – Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Giga Keep - This is gonna get spicy quick Dh75 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Egads, what a woefully ill-informed dumpster fire of an article creation. Political disagreements are a routine part of politics, even between people who were once closer in agreement on issues in the past. This is plain WP:NOTNEWS with a healthy heap of WP:COATRACK, as the article just becomes a platform on which to criticize both subjects. We have enough articles where a minor mention of their alliance-turned-sour can be given a brief mention. It is not a stand-alone topic. Zaathras (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Not endorsing keeping or deleting, but while I wouldn't have created this article, I don't think nominating it for deletion the same day the news breaks is helpful, and it will be easier to assess whether notability will be sustained in a week or two. charlotte ^👸♥ 23:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is probably the biggest interpersonal fallout in recent political history. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an important ongoing event. Furthermore, as per what FunkMonk said above. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – Per WP:TOOSOON, WP:RAPID and WP:DELAY, coverage is still in the 24‑hour news‑burst phase. Suggest relisting for one‑to‑two weeks so we can see if significant secondary analysis emerges- otherwise a merge to political activities of Elon Musk would suffice. Dahawk04 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE is about "planned coverage of scheduled events".
That's not it.
WP:NOTNEWS is about original or unreliable research, besides including WP:ROUTINE.
Again, that's not it.
WP:TOOSOON is about "verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources".
There is plenty already.
WP:COATRACK is about "unrelated things to make a point".
That's unrelated to notability, and related to what to include in an article, and how. There are enough deletionists around to keep that in check. At best it'd be an argument to burn everything from a page and start anew.
I'm not sure how people can judge the importance of that topic. Could be a tempest in a teapot. Could be big. Nobody has a crystal ball.
Voters might consult WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and bring arguments instead of thumbs. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:NEWSPRIMARY. Coverage of current events by news is not secondary coverage. It is by definition primary. Investigative journalism, in depth analysis, and similar articles are secondary coverage. But there are none of those yet. Per GNG, secondary coverage is required - not just routine news coverage of current events, which, again, is primary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether its primary or secondary depends on context... And in this context we primarily have coverage of tweets which would be the primary source with the news coverage being secondary. What that is supposed to prevent is making an article based on the tweets, not on articles about the tweets. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Coverage of tweets that just says "this person said this and here's a timeline of what happened" is not secondary. Secondary requires significant analysis/interpretation. A timeline or merely saying "this happened and here's a timeline of related events" is not secondary coverage. It's entirely possible for a source to report on information from elsewhere yet still be primary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an accurate description of the coverage... We have interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context. There also appears to be a lot of analysis of how we got here and the implications going forward. We also have a number of notable individuals offering their opinion on the matter, and coverage of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not secondary coverage. Saying "this is the historical context of 'how we got here'" is not analysis or interpretation. Offering opinions on the matter does not mean there is analysis or interpretation going on. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've selectively replied to my comment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not. You said That is not an accurate description of the coverage... We have interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context. I explained why that "interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context" is not secondary coverage. Explaining the definition of something is not secondary - likewise, explaining what the author thinks a tweet means is not secondary. The burden is on you to prove/show that there is "significant secondary" coverage. I look forward to you providing quotes (or another method) of showing what portion of sources you consider secondary in nature. I will happily revisit my position if your evidence is sufficient, alternatively, I will happily explain to you why your view of it being secondary/significant is wrong. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have and continue to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for you to justify and provide proof for your position. You have yet to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I and a number of other editors have, you have soundly ignored most of it... Going for selective responses and red herrings instead of anything resembling editing by a respected and able colleague. You don't even appear to have read the articles linked, you've only skimmed the URLs (and then falsely claimed that the URLs were titles). At the end of the day it doesn't appear that you can be satisfied, you appear to be WP:IDNHT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could have told me to read WP:GNG first:

1. Presumed? That one is seldom on deletionists' side.

2. Significant coverage? Check:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-06-05/elon-musk-trump-feud-full-timeline-of-the-public-meltdown

3. Reliable sources? Check:

https://www.cnn.com/business/timeline-elon-musk-trump-x-dg

4. Secondary sources? From your own source:

"Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material."

In case you have difficulties finding commentaries:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3wd2215q08o

https://www.vox.com/politics/415599/elon-musk-trump-feud-bill-contracts-nasa

5. Independent? That is usually implied by 4.

Also note:

"Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages."

To discuss usually implies one does not beg the question at hand, like you just did. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, coverage of tweets is not secondary. Secondary requires significant in depth analysis/interpretation. The current news is just "this happened, this is the history". That is not analysis/interpretation, much less in depth. A timeline is not analysis/interpretation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The timelines I offered establish significant coverage and reliable sources. And again, you are begging the question as to what is significant in depth analysis.

It shouldn't be that hard to find "analysis/interpretation":

https://www.wired.com/story/musk-trump-feud-venture-capitalists-pick-sides/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-blames-musks-criticism-decision-cut-ev-tax-credits-2025-06-05/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/musk-vs-trump-sniping-analysis-1.7553387

You may dispute that it's "significant" or "in depth", but then it's easy to do when one just has to argue by assertion.

What would convince you - ten monographs written by political scientists based on a statistical model with a 5-sigma threshold? Selbsportrait (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant and reliable are only two of the requirements. An article topic can have significant coverage in 100 reliable sources - but if none of that coverage is secondary, it's not notable. A paragraph of analysis in an otherwise primary source does not make it significant coverage in a secondary source. All must be met simultaneously - significant primary coverage does not count just because one small paragraph in it is secondary analysis. It must be significant secondary coverage. The burden is on you tyo identify why those sources show significant secondary coverage. Merely saying "analysis" in the title/headline doesn't matter when all it is is a timeline with maybe 3 sentences total of "analysis". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're throwing out red herrings, none of the three articles you were just presented with have analysis in the title/headline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
www.cbc.ca/news/world/musk-vs-trump-sniping-analysis

You clearly aren't actually reading what you're replying to. This thread is between me and Selbsportrait. Please don't try to derail it by commenting here when you clearly haven't even read the whole thread. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the URL, the title on the piece is "Musk vs. Trump: A power couple tumbles into a messy divorce" and it is marked as analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that it's only marked as analysis. Luckily, we don't just take sources at their word. You're free to quote the "analysis" that's present there. You have yet to do so, even with 3+ requests from me to do so at this point. The only valid assumption is that you are repeatedly not doing so because you can't - because it's not actually analysis that would qualify it as a secondary source and/or because any analysis present is in passing/so short as to not qualify as significant coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit no such thing... Another red herring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"have analysis in the title/headline"

Talk about herrings. An analysis is an analysis, whether or not there is "analysis" on its title/headline. But whatever: "World Analysis" is the kicker of one of them. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You're free to quote the "analysis" that's present there."

You're free to show that you read it too.

Start at "Hints of trouble in political paradise", and the next section. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not analysis. That's simple news reporting - i.e. primary. A couple sentences of "analysis" interspersed within a timeline/news report does not "significant secondary coverage" make. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that analysis not the same thing as providing a timeline.

And you still haven't provided any evidence that you read the piece. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"in 100 reliable sources"

Citation needed. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG: "Sources" should be secondary sources. No number of primary sources qualify a topic as notable. It could be 1000 primary sources. Doesn't make it notable. The requirement is that there be significant secondary source coverage. Not that there's lots of primary coverage of the topic with barely a sentence or paragraph of secondary coverage (analysis and/or interpretation). A timeline of events is not analysis or interpretation. There is yet to be shown any secondary coverage here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said "in 100 reliable sources".

Where did you get that?

Arguing by bold is no better than arguing by assertion, or worse by denial. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my original response. The number is an example. 1000 primary sources with one sentence each of secondary (analysis/interpretation) coverage in them does not make "significant coverage in secondary sources" for notability. A source can be primarily primary even if it contains a small amount of analysis/interpretation that would be secondary. Even if there's 1000 such sources, that is still not the significant secondary coverage necessary for notability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a source is "primarily primary" or not is immaterial to the fact that it can be used for its secondary material. Which is the whole point of the discussion in the page you patronized me to read.

A source that contains secondary material is considered secondary when the secondary material is used as source.

1000 bits of analysis exceed what a page can contain, so please beware your synthetic examples.

And you still haven't told me what would convince you. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean its notable. You cannot combine passing coverage in sources to meet notability. Each individual source used for notability must be significant secondary coverage. If it's only a sentence or short paragraph of secondary coverage, that is by definition not significant coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the concept of secondary source is relative, contextual, and something that needs to be discussed as per your own citation, it is certainly not (or, if you prefer, not) a matter of definition.

Repeating the same naked denials over and over again without showing any understanding of the material you asked me to read is unconvincing, to say the least. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided any reasoning why the sources you cited were secondary. I've explained to you that one or two sentences, or a short paragraph, of secondary coverage does not "significant secondary coverage" make. It doesn't matter if it has 100 sentences of primary coverage - the secondary coverage is all that counts/matters. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't explained anything. You simply denied, denied, denied.

And now you contradict yourself: first you suggested that a source was not secondary unless it contained a majority of secondary content. Now, the primary content doesn't matter.

Make up your mind. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not mutually exclusive arguments. You're the one making the claim that there is such - thus you're the one with the burden to prove it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are:

(1) A source, to be considered secondary, needs to contain a majority analytical content.

(2) A source, to be considered secondary, needs to contain analytical content.

(1) implies (2) but (2) does not imply (1).

Your obduracy is getting obnoxious. Let's drown it under something more constructive. Try this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/06/05/elon-musk-x-trump-attacks-epstein/

Notice the "Analysis by Will Oremus". Why would it be a primary source?Selbsportrait (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not based on whether it's called analysis or not. It's based on whether it actually is analysis. Merely gathering social media posts and historical information is not analysis. There are a couple sentences that are analysis in that article. But a couple sentences is not "significant" coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Merely gathering social media posts and historical information is not analysis."

So you haven't read the piece, or you don't have a clear reading of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts".

Either way, I don't need to prove what I just said, right?

Meanwhile, enjoy this other gathering:

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/amid-trump-musk-blowup-canceling-spacex-contracts-could-cripple-dod-launch-program/ Selbsportrait (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"But a couple sentences is not "significant" coverage" ummm it generally is... A couple of sentences "is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, per WP:RAPID. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could very well become one of the largest feuds in American political history, let's at least wait and see what happens before we delete this article. NesserWiki (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bigger than Burr–Hamilton duel. It's gonna be yuuuuuuuge, believe me folks. (sarcasm of course) CNC33 (. . .talk) 00:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE into Political activities of Elon Musk as its own section CNC33 (. . .talk) 00:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no rush to delete articles. Let it play out and see what lasts Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's very little "there" there in the first place for the article. Do we need a Wikipedia page for every twitter beef? Is this even notable yet? Trump has feuded with Elon before (even on Twitter too) and brought up government subsidies then too, and they made up after that. There is no reason to believe this will last longer than a week. It is worth maybe two sentences on Political activities of Elon Musk. Catboy69 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Elon Musk called Trump a pedophile this time and everyone actually cares now. I’m sorry to be going against all those Wikipedia guidelines or whatever, but at some point people have to realize this is an important event that people care about. Notability is notability. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't here to be a place for "event[s] that people care about". We are an encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the very definition of an encyclopedia is "a compendium of things that people care about" or at any rate think relevant enough to make part of the body of knowledge/record for future relevance. Irresistance (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... Our notability guideline is essentially a proxy for measuring how much relevant people care about something and deciding what is due for inclusion as a stand alone topic based on that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another option could be to rename this article to Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk (or to Relationship of Elon Musk and Donald Trump, depending on who you want to list first) to focus on their overall relationship (which includes the feud) rather than just their feud. Some1 (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
might actually be a good idea. better then keeping or deleting. i'm not sure if this article exists though, but under a different name JamesEMonroe (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support this DecafPotato (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, and there would be enough to siphon from Views of Elon Musk#Donald Trump to provide a background. I was surprised that this article only focuses on the 2025 feud, and not the previous as well. Scope aside, there is more to this subject than meets the topic at present. Please ping me if a broader topic is created, thanks. CNC (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait or Weak Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. If this continues to escalate tomorrow and over the next few days, this article should be kept; if it dies out quietly, than it can be deleted or merged. All in all, it seems to be too early to call what will happen. Remember WP:NTRUMP. 2601:402:680:1270:1449:C1:1B29:3004 (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is absolutely notable enough to be kept. EarthDude (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep:Redirect it is currently notable, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we still don't know if it will have lasting effects or not or if the notability will last. it could just blow over and not have much of any effects where it could go into another article or not even be notable enough. redirect per what the author said JamesEMonroe (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID and also because the coverage is already mostly sufficient for it to be notable and WP:NOTNEWS. I would be very surprised if this doesn't turn out to be obviously worthy of its own article in a few months. Loki (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Weak Keep: Although the topics discussed within the article may certifiably be considered immediately notable for many, notability is not determined from the immediateness of its occurrence (WP:TOOSOON / WP:DELAY). Many of the KEEPS appear to mention the possibility for it to become notable in the next couple days or weeks. But, notability cannot immediately be determined either by the possibility of higher significance in a possible future based on speculation (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL). But yes, this could indeed become a topic of higher importance within the next couple days. If the article is deleted and then it DOES become notable within the next couple days (causing a WP:REFUND), then this whole discussion would have been for nothing (WP:RAPID)... but I think that a KEEP should only be a reasonable choice IF and ONLY IF such notability is to occur within that short time frame. But if notability is not reached within that time frame, then it should be deleted and reconsidered IF and WHEN the topic becomes notable enough to where it would reasonably need a dedicated page instead as of a subtopic on a already existing page. ThatOneUnorigional (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — This feud does not appear to be headed towards a prolonged conflict. I haven't found an appropriate redirect target yet; One Big Beautiful Bill Act may work. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second. Did I read that right? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article creator doesn't have to support their own article in an AfD request. The only reason that I created this was because there was a possibility of an impact here. That possibility is likely to dissipate tomorrow. Thus, no reason for this to exist. The page may still be useful as a redirect target, given that you searched for this exact title and there are likely others who did as well. It is still possible that there is something tangible to this, but from my reading of the situation (both internally and from public sources), Musk conflated the views of White House advisors with Trump's view. The length of time is not the issue here, for the record, but rather the consequences. Without a meaningful response beyond threats and market reactions. That said, I'm also open to Some1's idea, which I privately considered for several days before abandoning it. Writing an article on the two men's relationship would be a very difficult undertaking. The base is here for a section of such an article, but the author would also have to do a significant differentiation that may not be possible with a lack of sourcing. At present, I do not believe that such an article—which I simply would have called Elon Musk and Donald Trump—could exist. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that this topic doesn't meet our criteria for notability, then you should not have created the article — you should have created it as a redirect. Creating an article before notability can be determined is called jumping the gun. Had this article not been prematurely created, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion (which won't be closed until several days later) at all. For the record, I agree: this "feud" looks to be nothing more than a few-hours-long online spat (happens all the time) that encompassed a bunch of angry tweets and sensational headlines (yellow journalism). InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"If you agree that this topic doesn't meet our criteria for notability"

Timeline matters: one could have decided to create that page because it was noteworthy, and then found out that it should not. The strength of that belief also matters: one could believe that building an encyclopedia matters more than one's personal beliefs and that it's up to the consensus to decide.

Both the inclusionist and the deletionist have a role to play. The former have the facts, the latter the logic. It's very important that inclusionists don't get too categorical with the logic they apply, for we don't live in a world closed under deduction, and we need to fix first. Selbsportrait (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. It is not possible for a topic to be notable and then cease to be notable. If a topic is observed to "stop being notable", that means it was never notable in the first place. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not conflate "is believed to be notable by one editor" with "is notable". One editor can believe that an article is notable, or not; consensus can deem otherwise.

The implication you emphasized earlier is that an editor who submits an article for publication *should* (clarification pending on that type of obligation) believe that it's notable. My point is to say that belief needs not be categorical: an editor can change their mind, or don't put much credence in their beliefs.

Topics and pages are two different things. That a topic *is* notable (as in, forever and ever) does not imply we can't decide to repurpose a page for other reasons. Notability only obligates us to preserve valuable information. We could delete all the pages of the encyclopedia except one if one day everything worth nothing could fit on one page. Notability would thus be preserved.

(I know that's not plausible: it's just a thought experiment to make a point.)

That page is about a page, not an editor. Once a page has been created, it's out of the original editor's hands. Remonstrating should be reserved to personal talk pages, and only if an editor has formal authority over them. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not encourage editors to unilaterally create articles on non-notable subjects because "they can always change their minds". It's true that they can change their mind, and it's true consensus can override their initial decision to create the article via AfD. However, this process is disruptive, time-consuming, effort-wasting, and could have been avoided if the original creator had exercised prudence and consulted on a talk page to gauge consensus on whether a subject could warrant its own page (i.e. a split proposal, or start a draft), rather than act unilaterally and then have buyer's remorse. As you can see with various !votes that boil down to "it shouldn't have been created, but it now exists, so oh well, let's save it, I guess" (which is basically the sunk-cost fallacy), editors are often hesitant to delete an article once it has been created, even though it is sometimes unfortunate but still necessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not encourage turning talk pages into trials either, yet you revealed that you were doing so all along one minute after I posted my previous comment.

And now you're going for armchair psychology about editors who disagree with you.

The question if any gun has been jumped has yet to be settled. So perhaps you should hold your horses yourself. Selbsportrait (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not encourage turning talk pages into trials either, yet you revealed that you were doing so all along one minute after I posted my previous comment. I don't believe I said that? What statement are you referring to? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what you say, but what you do with words that matters most. I'm referring to the comment you made one minute after this one. Since I made my comment at 17:34, it should be a comment a bit after that.

And just so we're clear, your implicit argument is of the form:

(P1) A* has been caught drunk typing a few times already.

(P2) A* was probably drunk typing this time too.

(P3) We should discount the output of those who type drunk.

(C) We should discount the value of what A* did because he was probably drunk typing at the time.

The alternative is to consider what A* did on its own merits.

There are contexts where this kind of ad hominem argument is valid. This page is not one of them.

I'm just using "drunk typing" for effect here. Replace that with any predicate you please. Selbsportrait (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is distracting too far from the main topic, so I'll probably disengage after this reply. I did not say, or even imply any of that: I did not say that we should delete this article because it was created by a problematic user (it's because it doesn't meet our notability guidelines), or that we should discount what they have to say (in fact, they agree with deletion/redirection), or that this AfD is a "trial" that should result in disciplinary action (that would be the wrong venue, and I do not think someone should be disciplined for one mistake, only given a stern warning), or that the user in question is acting in bad faith (they are not). I am not sure why you interpreted my words this way, but perhaps I did not articulate myself very well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I did not say, or even imply any of that"

Yes, you did. Right here:

other editors should be made aware of this context. The fact that you have been sanctioned in the past is demonstrative of the fact that I am not the only editor to share these legitimate concerns.

Let's spell it out:

"editors should be made aware" => this is relevant to the actual discussion

"this context" => the page under discussion is probably the result of drunk typing

"sanctioned in the past" => being caught drunk typing

"demonstrative" => an inference is being made

"legitimate concerns" => the argument is valid

Either you retract that "editors should be made aware", or you own what you're doing right now.

To disengage, one must engage first, and not ignore the points being made. Selbsportrait (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't want to drag this on further, but you've made some serious allegations here. You originally wrote that I was turning talk pages into trials, suggesting that I was scrutinizing their entire edit history and calling for disciplinary action to be taken. I found this to be a gross exaggeration, so I asked for clarification; in response, you did not explain why you felt my comments were "trial"-like but invoked your drunk-typing analogy, asserting that I had suggested that we should discount the output of those who type drunk and discount the value of what A* did because he was probably drunk typing at the time, i.e. we should delete this article because of the article creator's history, and anything they say should be ignored. Again, I did not say this: I wrote editors should be made aware because this is relevant context to consider, not because it is the smoking-gun justification for deletion; otherwise, I would have phrased it as, "Delete, because the article creator often creates articles on non-notable current events and has been 'caught' doing so before." I also did not say anything about their "output" or "value" being irrelevant, which I obviously disagree with. You're making it sound like I presented a long list of irrelevant evidence of past misbehavior, hurled ugly insults and baseless accusations, and threatened to have them sanctioned, which is not the case and does not appear to be assuming good faith. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "often creates" bit allows us to rephrase the argument:

(P1) A* often creates articles on non-notable current events.

(P2) A* probably did so this time too.

(P3) We should discount the output of those who often create articles on non-notable current events.

(C) We should discount the value of the page under discussion, i.e. it (probably) fails notability.

Without something like P3, P1 and P2 adds nothing to the current discussion. One reading of it is that this ad hominem argument supports the claim that the page is not notable. The alternative is that this argument does not "inform" how to judge the current page.

"Does not appear to be assuming good faith" is often used as an ad hominem too. It probably is one. Should it allow us to discount the value of the position it accompanies, i.e. that this page is non-notable? Let's hope not.

From times immemorial, Knights and Gnomes chased down Dragons away from thy wiki. While this sport can bring vigorous merriment, they are often followed by complaints about the sad state of undeveloped entries afterwards. Perhaps Knights should let our Dragon population grow for a little while, and organize jousting tournaments between themselves instead. Selbsportrait (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"That possibility is likely to dissipate tomorrow."

I would take the other side of that bet, but I'm not sure why deciding what to do with that page should rest on the result of that bet.

A Musk-Trump page could be useful. A mention on the Big Beautiful Bill page is warranted either way, but it's really not the same thing. Selbsportrait (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ElijahPepe, you could rename the feud article to Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk to expand the scope, or create a Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk article and redirect this feud article there. I do believe that the relationship between these two men is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Some1 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A change in scope requires consensus, not to be done unilaterally. The closer of this AfD will determine whether there is consensus to change the scope of the article, or leave it as it is, or delete/redirect/draftify it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this article gets kept, then yeah, a change in scope and title would require consensus on the talk page. If this article gets deleted/redirected/draftified, that doesn't prevent another editor from creating a Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk / Trump-Musk relationship article, which has a different (and broader) scope than this feud article. Some1 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The event is gaining immense media coverage, and it's still too soon whether to really consider this a short or prolonged conflict. Until we see what happens we should keep the article as is. Tofusaurus (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per WP:RAPID. This article probably shouldn't have been created so soon, but the feud looks to be notable per WP:EVENTCRIT. It's had a substantial economic impact already and significant coverage from diverse sources. However, given the characters involved this could either blow over in a day or be a protracted conflict. So, it's too soon to say if coverage is WP:SUSTAINED. EvansHallBear (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, as people said above. It's too soon to say. Trump is well known for getting into controversies with all kinds of people. Not all warrant an article, even if they are prominent people. In my opinion, we have to wait and see the consequences of this. Given a couple weeks, if nothing comes out of this, it should be deleted. Sure, there are plenty of news articles about this, but not everything that has news written about it warrants a Wikipedia article.
Not sure why this article was created in the first place. This AfD could've been avoided if the creator had waited a bit longer to see how things went. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 06:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was created too early, but the event is likely to easily meet the WP:GNG given the media coverage so far. Melmann 07:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This right here will be a peace of history. I don't think that Trump or Musk will refrain from further attacks on one another, even if its just on X. We have a US Prez and World's richest man going against each other. THIS IS SIGNIFICANT Divyanshu8999 (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. As pointed out above, there is no article for Elon Musk—Donald Trump relationship. This article could cover the full history and dynamic and be better suited to evolve over time. Dflovett (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to do that, we could use content from Views of Elon Musk#Donald Trump. ―Panamitsu (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a great idea. Their relationship warrants an article, not just this particular event. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 06:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Too. soon to tell. Could fizzle, could explode. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The feud is even analyzed in international media, including naming (long term) consequences and so meeting all aspects of WP:NEVENT. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify We have wp:notnews for a reason, and this may well blow over and (given how childish the pair of them are acting) they may be best buddies again this time next week. So we should wait to see if this has any lasting consequences. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON, WP:10YT. Let's see where this goes.LM2000 (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Probably WP:TOOSOON but to me the obvious notability of this event leads me to lean keep. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 12:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of general encyclopedic interest and notability. It's a political drama more suited to celebrity gossip shows than Wikipedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. I thought the page creator was TBAN'd from making new pages through anything other than the AfC process? ^EF⁵ 14:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this up as I was not aware of this, but I must say I'm not surprised given my past dealings with this user. It appears based on this ANI discussion that they were topic-banned by the community for six months ... which expired last month. Almost immediately, their pattern of disruption has continued. It appears they did not learn from their all-too-brief period of sanction. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I have created are here. Of the last nineteen since the topic ban, only this one has been sent to AfD. I did not create it as a one-sentence page, which was largely the issue, and I have been expanding it. This crusade against me is not appropriate in this AfD. There are other venues for this if you believe that I am acting maliciously. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe you are acting in bad faith and did not accuse you as such; however, disruption made in good faith remains disruptive. I hope this AfD will serve as a reminder to refrain from jumping the gun and mass-creating articles about current events before notability is established — again, we do not predict whether a topic might be notable in the future. As I have stated above, this is not a personal "crusade" against you, but other editors should be made aware of this context. The fact that you have been sanctioned in the past is demonstrative of the fact that I am not the only editor to share these legitimate concerns. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mass creation does not appear to be at issue here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Their talk page says otherwise... InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking because, although it was not my intention, some editors have raised concerns that this could be interpreted as a personal attack. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh its obviously a personal attack... What I'm saying is that its also wrong, this article under discussion here was not part of a mass creation and given that you've already seen their article creation history you know what. So you know for a fact that there is no issue with mass creation in this context but you brought it up anyway purely as a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article was probably created too soon; however, I personally have no doubts about the notability and long-term significance of the event, which is why I'm voting for keep. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Another article created too soon about something we will after forgot soon enough. Not everything that Trump does deserve an article, Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and I don't think there is any real benefit of having an article about this here, in an encyclopedia. Cosmiaou (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC+2)
Keep This was all over the news yesterday and definitely took up most of the top news. Additionally this could flare up again if the BBB fails. BigRed606 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This was all over the news" is not a valid argument to make. See WP:SUSTAINED: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. WP:TRUMPCRUFT is a great essay that talks about this as well. It's too early to make the call on whether this article meets our notability guidelines. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay and carries zero weight. The bit that actually matters says "may not" instead of "does not" I don't think you can say that isn't a valid argument. If its too early to make that call then its too early to delete (or even have this discussion), that argument only goes one way and its not in favor of deletion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People often say this when an essay is invoked (that they disagree with), but just because an essay is non-binding does not mean it's automatically wrong and should be immediately tossed aside as irrelevant. Essays often contain good advice, especially those that have been continually shaped by consensus. The fact that SUSTAINED says "may not" and not "does not" does not change the meaning: it is still true that press coverage does not guarantee notability, but SUSTAINED suggests that it may not be the case if proven otherwise. The editor who made this !vote did not explain why they believe this to be the case other than "it was in the news", which is a weak (if not invalid) justification. Regarding your last point, if it's too early to tell if an article meets notability guidelines, then by default, it is not notable. If it's too early to tell whether your chicken is done cooking, we don't assume it's cooked. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Regarding your last point, if it's too early to tell if an article meets notability guidelines, then by default, it is not notable" if that was true then NOTNEWS wouldn't say "Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Everything we have so far indictates that its notable and will remain so... Hard to imagine future biographies of either man aren't going to talk about this in-depth. The argument that it won't receive sustained coverage is nonsensical, even if it fizzles there will be sustained coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Delete Gossip and trivia. WP isn't the 'National Enquirer'. Having reviewed much of the commentary here, the suggestion/proposal to rename the article more broadly (a la Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk) would be the more productive choice. A good deal of overflow content from the respective individual articles can be merged there with redirects. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is obvious WP:TRUMPCRUFT WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON also apply. The spectacle of two wealthy and powerful men bickering on social media might be appropriate for a discord but it's not encyclopedic. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It is way too soon to know if this social-media tiff between these two powerful men will have any lasting significance or be forgotten in a week when one of them tweets on some other subject. Placing this in draft space for the next 6 months will avoid wasting the hard work that has already been done by the creator in assembling sources and documenting the early hours of the dispute so that, if it does have lasting significance, the article can be returned to mainspace or portions of it incorporated in other relevant articles. However, if it does not have lasting significance, it will allow an admin to delete it at a point in time when its encyclopedic value or lack thereof is actually able to be determined. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also not object to the scope of the article being broadened to cover their entire relationship, per several !voters above. I also do not think anyone needs to wait for the AFD to close to begin that work. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering CNN has a timeline now I’d say it’s pretty notable.--69.74.180.42 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would also support broadening the article per the above. 69.74.180.42 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm in the wait camp, the mere existance of a timeline doesn't factor in. We know RS are covering this. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 05:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the announced decommission of the Dragon capsules has now been canceled, apparently. Maybe in a few days it's all forgoten (or perhaps gets growing). Wait a while, the article can be keep temporarily until the fog of war goes away. Iberia-Tao (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the proposed redirs, Political activities of Elon Musk, is long already, so we'd have a subpage anyway. And this particular topic will have its continuation, with its own repercussions. — Kochas 23:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The Trump-Musk fallout could have major political and economic consequences in the coming months and may even affect the 2026 United States elections. I'd say it is too early at this point to determine whether the article violates WP:NOTNEWS, but I'd definitely recommend it for deletion if there doesn't turn out to be any major consequences. MilaKuliž (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – If the story is sustained for more than a few days, then keep. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait~~ → Weak Keep - way too quick of a nom. Deleting an article on one of the largest news items of 2025 that almost certainly will pass WP:LASTING within a week causing the inevitable recreation is so silly. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 02:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear to me what Wait means here - the usual !votes are "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect". Does Wait mean "keep for now" or "delete and bring back if sustained"? One possibility is "Draftify", which would move the article out of main space for the moment, but that will make it hard for others to work on it. Personally, I'll go with Keep and link this to various articles about Musk and Trump, as appropriate. It also will need a redirect from "Donald Trump-Elon Musk feud". (I think "feud" is too strong but I'm failing to think of anything better. Lamona (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait means 'keep for now', per WP:RAPID it was too quick to create an AfD, I was basically signalling that this AfD should result in a keep, but a few weeks later I could be swayed. I've always lent towards keep in this AfD, but I'm officially changing it to a weak keep as I've also grown increasingly unconvinced by the arguments in favour of deletion as the story has progressed and the article been expanded to detail the 2022 feud as well. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 01:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd encourage @InfiniteNexus to WP:DROPTHESTICK, especially regarding whatever issue you may or may not have with this article's creator, which now seems to be sprinkled all around this AfD discussion. The creator's history has no bearing on the merits of whether or not this article is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. RachelTensions (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this discussion, I have only discussed the article creator's past behavior twice: first, to note that they have a history of rapidly creating current-event articles that are often sent to AfD due to notability concerns; and second, in reply to another editor's comment on the user's previous topic ban. I did not make any additional references to their history other than in replies to those two statements; all other comments pertained to the notability of the topic. My intention was to alert !voters of the context of this AfD and to caution the editor against engaging in said behavior in the future, as it could and have been seen as disruptive. I did not anticipate the replies to those two comments to balloon out of control and create the impression that I am waging a personal war against the user, which was not my intention. I do apologize if my comments, which were intended as sincere advice, were interpreted as such, but I do maintain that the editor's background is relevant context, and I was mindful to remain civil but direct. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is now the third time, your last sentence is all you needed to move on here. Regurgitating and justifying your arguments again, in summarized format, is not exactly dropping the stick. It's more like reformatting the stick into a pole and entrenching it. CNC (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped the stick in my last comment and moved on; why did you have to pick it back up? It's unfortunate that my words are being cherry-picked as a "gotcha" moment. Whether or not you agree with me on the relevance of the context, this has been blown way out of proportion. This will be my final reply; moving on to more important matters. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't, but you have now. Thanks. CNC (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Plenty of detailed secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly violating WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:TOOSOON. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only actually sustainable argument against this is that it violates WP:TOOSOON, Which is a very weak argument. Also, Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. And WP:notnews is very, Very, wrong on multiple reasons. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 04:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This could be moved to something like 'Elon Musk and Donald Trump' and it could information about their relationship before this. KnowDeath (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could move the article to "Relationship between Elon Musk and Donald Trump", much the same way as Relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this. KnowDeath (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a week or so per WP:RAPID. As others have said we don't know if this will keep getting significant coverage past the current news cycles, so I don't believe we should delete it outright at this moment. Sophocrat (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but rename?). The sources support a page on this, but I do not know if another name would make sense, or if in the event of multiple such "feuds", maybe a date qualifier in the title such as "2025 Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud" or maybe even something even more specific and refined. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait as too soon for standalone article, even if notable enough not to delete. As referenced in the discussion, there is the previous feud that isn't even mentioned, though will excerpt that after this comment for consistency. Overall I think a Musk–Trump relationship based article, as other editors have already suggested, would be the best approach to broaden scope for a more notable topic; therefore including this content within as merely one part of a broader topic with long-term SIGCOV. Am otherwise opposed to merging to a Musk or Trump child article, as this is about both individuals, thus content doesn't belong to a child article of only one party to the dispute. CNC (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with being opposed to merging this feud stuff into the Musk or Trump article. I want to mention too that this feud article has received 30,309 page views in two days, so clearly readers are interested in this topic. Some1 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Giga keep. this may reflect a potential split of the Tech Right and Populist/MAGA Right. Important stuff man Shadow Dreadlord (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator, not a breaking news platform. If it becomes an historic break between the tech right and MAGA then after we would have an article about it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What part of CRYSTAL is at issue here? This isn't any of the five categories or otherwise mentioned... Going line by line none of it seems to apply here, so do us a favor and pull every quote from there you think applies here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot predict a social media spat will become historically significant in the future. I think points 3 and 5 are relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Literally none of points 3 or 5 are relevant here. Not a single sentence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To expand... Point 3 is about "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history"" but this article doesn't do that, a synth complaint has been raised about a single section but no such claim has been made about the article writ large nor does it appear that one could be (and the extant synth claim is about information from the past, not about the future)... Point 5 is about "product announcements and rumors" (and not rumors in general, rumors about a product) and this article isn't about a product at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Culturally relevant and a feud between capital and the government ForFawkesSake (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This is not a question of whether the feud impacts other 'keepworthy' events or phenomena, but whether this feud in and of itself is sufficiently "event-like" to justify its own article. I believe that it is. Irresistance (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Also - compare this to the article about "Covfefe" and ask yourself if THAT is seriously worth including more than the circus going down right now as part of this feud ;) Irresistance (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Covfefe? The hashtag #covfefe had been used on the Internet 1.4 million times within 24 hours of Trump's tweet. Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - but would that not be more valid as an expression or symptom of the presidency and/or character of Trump (as president) - and not so much worthy as being an event in and of itself...? Trump's behavior (however you feel about it) was the thing that made the impact - Covfefe was merely one instance of it. This feud does have some similarities but I still believe is sufficiently impactful as its own "event" to warrant an article. The Covfefe tweet did not have such an impact. Irresistance (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm on your side. We even have COVFEFE Act and Category:Hip-hop feuds, like the Taylor Swift–Kanye West feud. Hence why I wrote Strong Keep under your initial comment. Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Taylor Swift–Kanye West feud started 16 years ago and its article was just created last month. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud? Rosa Olmos (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good example of a feud between two equally notable individuals, even though it lasted much longer than this topic. The AfD in 2024 was a snowball which is quite revealing tbh. PS please strike your bold for the benefit of the closer to avoid voting twice. CNC (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I allow you to edit it, if you or somebody else deem it voting twice. Or are you to referring to User:Irresistance indeed casting 2 votes? Rosa Olmos (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK done, bold removed. Thanks. CNC (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I changed one into a comment, excuse the apparent double vote - unintended Irresistance (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. AfD isn't based on votes anyway, my fault that I adopted that view, my formatting was also unintended: Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.. It's just hard to edit the comment, once it's posted. Rosa Olmos (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Fully passes Wikipedia:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:ROUTINE --Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It should be merged into another article or redirected to an anchor section. – 216.49.130.15 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would contradict Wikipedia:LENGTH. Hence exactly such particular-topic "summary" articles. — Kochas 19:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn’t the article be trimmed? – 216.49.130.15 (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIZERULE at 1,500 words there is no size-based justification for that. CNC (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This feels like a very temporary event; it won't affect anything in a permanent way, not nationally & not internationally. The fact that most of this has been a back-and-forth type of talk on Twitter/Truth Social proves that it won't have a lasting effect, in my opinion. Diamondcladskies (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments based upon feelings without policy grounding aren’t helpful. Consider amending to reference relevant policy. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 17:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a prerequisite for tendering a vote? I see a dozen or more each of 'keep's and 'delete's above that are nothing but feelings about how deeply important a social media spat is, and that it's one of the most important events in the 2025/American political history, and stacks of predictions that it will have massive, long term consequences (such as affecting the 2026 election. Should all votes that don't cite policy be discarded from the final tally? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are not a democracy. They are not votes. Arguments without policy grounding will be discarded by the patrolling admin, yes. I was simply informing them of this fact. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 22:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was a valid vote. So nothing to worry about. PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no reason to delete this, including the Not News arguments above. This article is one of those things that WP readers will benefit from, by having the community of WP editors collect facts and present them in an organized way. KConWiki (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significance of the participants notwithstanding, this has been extensively covered by RS. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Both The New York Times and The Washington Post have just published articles detailing the rift between Musk and Trump, which spanned several months and only culminated in this brief 24-hour online spat. We should not give WP:UNDUE weight to this incident while ignoring the larger context of their long-simmering tensions, so this should either be merged back into Political activities of Elon Musk or refactored into a larger article covering his role in the second Trump administration. It should not solely cover his relationship with Trump, as some have suggested, because we would be pulling too many unrelated details such as their earlier spat over Musk's acquisition of Twitter. Response to the Department of Government Efficiency (which was previously titled "Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government") could be merged into that hypothetical article well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the feud has a longer history, we should not give undue weight to the current events and the article should be expanded to cover that. I have no idea how the existence of more history lead you to the conclusion that this article should be deleted. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it appears like you're grasping for reasons to keep this AfD alive. The assertion that this conflict spans months you just provided invalidates the vast majority of deletion support on the grounds of NOTNEWS and TOOSOON. Clearly the right decision if it is true that there is many months of history to this feud is to abandon the AfD and expand the curren feud article to detail the extensive history instead of shoving it into other tangently related articles. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 22:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be non-neutral and inaccurate to describe the leadup to their online spat as a "feud", leaning into sensationalist yellow journalism territory. We are not a tabloid, and no sources have characterized their entire relationship as a "feud". Articles dedicated to criticism or controversies are generally discouraged. I don't appreciate or agree with your characterization of my comment as grasping for reasons to keep this AfD alive; and yes, it is still TOOSOON to declare that this incident should exist as a separate article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your argument now appears to be in favour of a rename. Even then I may disagree, we have plenty of articles on feuds as it stands, and the fact that no source have characterized their entire relationship as a feud isn't compelling as this article isn't about their entire relationship, it is about the ongoing feud.

My comment on grasping is not made in isolation. It relates to the conduct I've observed throughout this AfD, starting with the undue criticism of ElijahPepe and followed by the vast number of arguments you've attempted. However my opinions on your motivations do not matter if you can make compelling arguments. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 23:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My position has been consistent throughout the discussion: I do not think an article dedicated to the social media dispute that occurred on Thursday should exist until notability is established. I am less concerned with how this outcome is achieved, whether through redirecting to One Big Beautiful Bill, merging with Political activities of Elon Musk, refactored and renamed into a broader article, or outright deleted. The majority of my comments have been dedicated to demonstrating why this topic does not meet our notability guidelines. If the closer finds consensus against keeping, they will have to perform a WP:BARTENDER close. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The topic scope is not only about the recent feud between Musk and Trump that "that occurred on Thursday", but also the previous spat in 2022 that was also described as a feud at the time, per content. CNC (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CommunityNotesContributor: When did that happen, and why? The article is now pulling two unrelated incidents together to draw a forced connection, akin to WP:SYNTH. The previous "feud" (if it is even neutral to call it that without sources to support its use) is even less notable than last week's, so the latter would be the primary topic and the article should solely cover that. The article title doesn't necessarily imply there weren't other "feuds" in the past. We can mention it briefly in the "Background" section, but it probably does not warrant an entire paragraph per WP:UNDUE. I do not see consensus on the talk page for this change in scope; was this done unilaterally? InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this discussion to the article's talk page, as it is not related to deletion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"is even less notable than last week's"

Still begging that question, I see. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is unconstructive to make snarky comments under every one of my replies, especially one that was not even directed to you. You're welcome to weigh in if you have something to add, but otherwise, this is not helpful and, frankly, incivil. This AfD has not been closed (probably should), editors continue to cast !votes, and consensus has yet to be detrmined as to whether this topic is notable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of constructiveness, your 350-word and five-point request has already been answered.

That took less than three minutes.

Before that, I have compiled and published a small set of commentaries, so that editors who want to help can have a head start, and to provide a solid moat against earlier naked assertions of non-notability.

This took more than three minutes.

What metapedians get out of metapedianizing may always elude me.

In the great online battle between smarm and snark, I picked my side.

Sorry about that. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's bordering on bludgeoning, to be honest. RachelTensions (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Its still a developing story so we should keep it for now, but we can see how it stands later on. TheBritinator (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and probably rename to "Relationship between Trump and Elon" per @KnowDeath above. WinKyaw (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is clearly significant, and it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon Not a kitsune (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relevant content can be covered elsewhere. Encyclopedic notability of this particular turn of events has not been demonstrated. This article is largely excerpts and summaries of other articles and play-by-plays about tweets and unfollows.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't wikipedia articles supposed to be almost entirely excerpts and summaries of other articles/sources? WP:V and all that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant other Wikipedia articles, mainly Views of Elon Musk. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, that makes more sense. Not sure I entirely agree but I get it now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please have mercy I only recently got that article back below 9,000 words 😭 CNC (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KConWiki. Zero Contradictions (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just a temporary feud between two people. The only thing that has happened up to now is them exchanging insults on social media. In my country, one of the richest people also has a feud with the government through social media and the press. That does not need a new article and neither does this.Bigar (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. A social media fight that lasted one day does not have enough encyclopedic value for its own article. The information would fit better within one of the many other broader scope articles involving the 2 subjects. Ratgomery (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bit more than a day, but given your last sentence, would you support merging instead? --Super Goku V (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I doubt this is going to be a simple feud that peters out quickly, especially with Elon owning X and Tesla, I have my bets there is going to be much more drama to go on. Also there's the whole "Trump is on the Epstein Files" and who knows how that will shake out. G5bestcfb (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it a celebrity gossip magazine. Almost all the sources in this article are immediate reactions from 5 June to the twitter spat, followed by significantly less from 6 June, then only a couple sources from 7 June and none from 8 or 9 June (with a few sources from years ago synthetically attached to this subject). If this subject does not have significant coverage enduring enough to make it even a few days past the immediate gossip circles, then it's hard to accept that this is meets the criteria for a notable event. If this turns into anything, then we can revisit it, but right now, it's just gossip with no wider consequences. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not determined by the sources in the article but by all extant sources on the topic, you will easily be able to find signficant coverage from the 8th and 9th. I suggest a google news search limited to the past 24 hours, that will turn up pieces like these: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wary of replying to so many comments, but I keep seeing this argument being used. However, the existence of sources alone isn't the sole determinant of notability, and it doesn't automatically warrant a standalone article. Some topics may meet sourcing requirements but are nonetheless better off as a section on an existing article, per WP:NOPAGE. See WP:N: [GNG] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. We also need to consider the WP:LASTING significance of a topic through measures such as the WP:10Y test: is the topic likely to remain notable in the long run, or will it simply be a blip in time that we're devoting undue emphasis on? WP:EVENTCRIT sets a higher bar than some other topics on Wikipedia. Pardon of Hunter Biden; Death of Matthew Perry; Controversies surrounding Ezra Miller. These topics all received brief bursts of widespread news coverage, but they do not and should not have standalone articles because they are ultimately fleeting events with little historical significance. If this event ends up having significant ramifications later on, then we can consider restoring it in the future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a red herring, I did not argue that the existence of sources alone is the sole determinant of notability, or that it automatically warrants a standalone article. Also note that WP:10YT instructs "Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism." so if you're trying to use it to argue for deletion you simply do not understand what it is saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
neutrafor me Although this matter has almost gone viral on TikTok in China, I think it can be kept or deleted directly (it still has some record value) 后藤喵 (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an important event that will affect future events. in future articles when this has lost familiarity but still affects future events, this can be easily wikilinked instead of having to explain the whole thing a million times. as other people have said, in the unlikely scenario where this does not achieve impact, then it can always be deleted Plastixfy (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Political activities of Elon Musk or Delete. It was a 3 day thing that doesn't seem to have any impact. Especially since he deleted all his tweets. Looks like WP:TRUMPCRUFT. PackMecEng (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is EXTREMELY notable news going on right now. This is the fallout of a formerly tight relationship. If this does not happen, then I believe it should be merged into Political activities of Elon Musk/ It is a fairly well-written article that could use some extra information. Whykiepedia (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was extremely played up. 2003:D1:C737:C0AF:B4BF:EB8B:B177:5E77 (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. The feud was definitely played up by the media, but there is notability. I think the ultimate solution would be to merge this like I commented above. Whykiepedia (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. 129.104.244.113 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into One Big Beautiful Bill Act#Musk–Trump feud. Seems this feud, and related coverage, has mostly died off. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. I think it’s too soon to definitively determine lasting notability and it does little harm to keep it up. On the contrary, I think it is very helpful to have it up right now because the feud is currently the focus of a lot of attention and people (like myself) look for bird’s eye views like this article in order to understand what’s going on.^📻NuclearSpuds_🎙️ 07:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NTRUMP — Czello ^(music) 15:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook WP:NOTNEWS failure, per many many many others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a couple more days to see if the current fizzle-out remains. If it does, I'm inclined to merge into Political activities of Elon Musk or One Big Beautiful Bill Act as editors see fit, as there would be no sustained coverage. If coverage continues, keep. -insert valid name here- (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified the other half of the argument. -insert valid name here- (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the threshold of significant coverage in reliable sources. (Unsurprising, given the clash between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man.) If someone wanted to broaden it into Trump-Musk alliance, or relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, then perhaps that would be sensible, but that's not an AfD matter. Neutrality^talk 00:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments"-WP:JV Thegoofhere (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Relations of Elon Musk and Trump to increase the scope. We do not rush to remove articles about recent events. Thegoofhere (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant political event. Moondragon21 (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Politics of Elon Musk: Per the nominator, This could easily fit better in individual sections such as Politics of Elon Musk. Per WP:ATD-M, we should merge rather than delete when we can. Looking at the 'Second Trump administration' and 'Musk on the Big Beautiful Bill' sub-sections along with the '2025 feud' section, I think that there is sufficient content that could be merged into one or more articles. I am not opposed to additional merging or even redirecting, but am opposed to deletion.
For some additional comments, I don't see NOTNEWS as convincing when this wasn't a routine event based on the definition at ROUTINE. Per routine: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for a whole article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences, etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary events that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories). Wasn't an announcement, wasn't a scheduled event, wasn't run of the mill. For the rest, this isn't a Who's Who violation as both are notable nor does this appear to be either a NOTDIARY issue or an original reporting issue. I believe most of those citing NOTNEWS should clarify the violation more as just pointing at a policy isn't helpful and leaves no good explanation. Also, I will note here that news coverage has continued into this week: USA Today, New York Times, CNN, Al Jazeera, PBS. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize - I think it's a better idea to rewrite the article to make it less newsy, more encyclopedic. --HarlambiDaabrev (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As unfortunate as it is it's still a notable event so Keep. NYC Guru (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This wasn't lasting and it's already over with. Not notable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Czech Republic in First Place!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails relevant guidelines including WP:ORG. Most of the article isn't even about the political party. The sources which do relate to the party, do not provide in-depth and independent coverage of it. C 679 15:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 15:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- There are plenty of sources, but maybe it's true that the party itself isn't the notable topic here. Possible move to Ladislav Vrabel? (Currently a redirect to this article). Jdcooper (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Jdcooper that the sources are sufficient, and they could be expanded as well. The party is currently active and plans to run in the October election as well.

At max, it would be feasible to merge this article with Czech Republic First!, but I don't think that's needed. Kroulacek (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of libertarianism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm by no means a fan of dedicated criticism articles, but I think this takes the cake as one of the worst ones. This article was created 20 years ago as a POV fork of the libertarianism article and has since been indiscriminately collecting together a series of criticisms without any connection to one another. The article reads as a long repetitive list of "This person says libertarianism is bad for this reason", followed by a lengthy quote, and cited almost exclusively to primary sources, without any reliable secondary sources to provide a throughline. A cursory search on Google Scholar doesn't come up with many sources that are specifically about the criticism of libertarianism, which is instead covered within the context of the subject as a whole.

Article deletion was raised some time ago, but nothing ultimately came of it, so I thought I'd open a discussion about it now. I don't think this article serves any value to our readers as it currently exists, it is just a fork with an inherently non-neutral POV. Any relevant overarching criticisms specific to libertarianism can easily be integrated into the main article, and the individual opinions of philosophers can be merged into their own articles. Obviously I'd be happy to hear out any alternatives to deletion people might have, and possible ways to improve the article, but right now I don't see a way of fixing its fundamental issues. Grnrchst (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Libertarianism, and Politics. Grnrchst (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and since this is not a valuable WP:SPINOUT to have so there's no reason to keep the redirect. Psychastes (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Psychastes. Sal2100 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the document is 'Criticism of libertarianism', so why is it bad that it describes criticisms of libertarianism? I don't understand. 118.41.174.125 (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now per nom (to Libertarianism#Criticism). Having such a standalone article is not currently considered best practice. However, I don't think not being a valuable spinout is considered an accepted reason for deleting a redirect (WP:RDELETE) and nor would I see a need for the content to be revdeled should this have been already redirected, so I'm not quite clear on the idea the redirect should be deleted. Content can be integrated into the main article selectively from history. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Asian American Movement and Black Power

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Term paper redundant with Asian American movement and Black power movement. Gjs238 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing revisions with assistance

Hi all, I'm the librarian supporting the students editing this page, and have consulted with them to make additional edits. Additional feedback will of course be appreciated! AnitaConchita (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note that this is an article copy of Draft:AAPA and Black Power (previously draftified after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AAPA and Black Power). It looks like a few students were working on it this past semester and then copy-pasted it here, so if the article is kept, that draft should be redirected here and the attribution fixed. My read of the article is that it's mostly stitching together sections that would be better covered as subtopics in the corresponding articles (in particular, the amount of detail about Yuri Kochiyama kind of turns her into a metonym for an entire social movement). My recommendation would be to delete this copy and merge relevant info from the draft into Yuri Kochiyama, Asian American Political Alliance, and maybe George Floyd protests or Killing of Akai Gurley. @AnitaConchita If you're continuing work with the students still, I'd encourage exploring how this info can be incorporated there. hinnk (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lyakhov

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet inclusion criteria per the sources in the article. The sources do not meet WP:RS as the subject is the author of some of the articles. CPDJay (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. CPDJay (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Town (Colchester ward)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe that it has ever been the intention of Wikipedia to raise to article levels minor electoral areas in local government as such. Obviously a ward may encompass an area such as a village that is relevant in and of itself, but in this case, it is simply a collation of electoral results, which is by no means significant coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with clear precedent. There are thousands of electoral constituency articles on Wikipedia of all types and AFDs have routinely return Keep results. This article is well written and sourced. MRSC (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For national election constituencies, that is true. But this is only for electing local government. Such wards do not see news articles speculating about who might win, or possible candidates. Those elected are unlikely to ever generate GNG coverage such as would lead to them getting an article. It is a very different scale than a constituency for national government.

If this is to be retained, does that mean that we ought to have a goal of creating articles for all 8,694 such wards in th UK? Not to mention equivalents worldwide. Kevin McE (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to City of Colchester. Local city ward lacks notability and fails GNG. There is no precedent or basis for any suggestion that constituencies are automatically notable, particularly at the local level with only a few thousand voters. Most of the other thousands of articles are at the national or regional level and are substantially larger entities (and many of them should also be deleted or merged). The suggestion that the article is well-sourced is simply laughable, the only sources are simple election results data for the council, nothing remotely resembling significant coverage. We are not a database for every minor election result without context. Reywas92^Talk 03:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to City of Colchester; it's just a local ward. No inherent notability and no SIGCOV. The electoral records can be linked form the main page. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would be merged? Are you proposing that the article for the city should have every result of every ward election since the area became a local authority? Or that this one ward somehow gets exceptional treatment? Kevin McE (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the prose (about five lines), and link the tables of results. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, but why would the City of Colchester article be improved by having some trivial data about a former ward, while a couple of dozen other former and current wards do not have the same details given? Or why the results of this one (former) ward should be preserved and reported while those of the others are not? Kevin McE (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be crying into my beer if this article is deleted, but WP:ATD states that "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page" and WP:ATD-M that "articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles". So my reply is based on the deletion policy.

Speaking of which: per below, instructions for multiple-article AfDs are at WP:BUNDLE. Hope this helps. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By no means intended as an attack on you, but I think it is a huge flaw of the deletion system that an instruction gets sent to a talk page telling editors there that material from another article is to be incorporated into it, with no consideration of whether it is appropriate or proportionate, often when there has been no awareness on the part of the editors committed to the target page that such a thing is under discussion. It comes across (again, by no means intending this as personal to you) as an extraordinary systemic arrogance that one part of Wikipedia tells another what it must do with no consultation at all.

But that is a bigger issue than the article at hand.

Thanks to the signposting to WP:Bundle, but that doesn't seem to deal with later additions to an AfD, so I'll see what happens here, then propose it if there is (what seems to me) a suitable outcome here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the method is for turning a simple AfD into a multiple article AfD, but anything that can be said about this article seems likely equally true of Castle (Colchester ward). And if both of those are deleted, I would suggest that Template:Electoral wards in the City of Colchester, being then is void, should equally be removed. Kevin McE (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Ballot Group

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bit of a tricky one I think, given that it gets mentioned all the time, e.g., for their failed Georgia bid and it's considered a major vendor in the industry (see Axios, Engadget), but most of the more in-depth sources are the sort of WP:TRADESy sources that we would not typically consider to meet WP:ORGCRIT, for example InformationWeek / Dark Reading and Xconomy.

There are a couple of scholarly sources mentioning the company also, for example, Bernhard et al. (2019) and his later PhD thesis, Bernhard (2020), but I don't think it quite meets the criteria for depth of coverage. The best news source I found would probably be Washington Monthly, but again I don't think it quite meets the "directly and in-detail" threshold that we would need to write an article from it.

It would be a bit of a shame to have absolutely nothing on the company, but there are a few places where it is mentioned, so I figure I'd propose it as a redirect to Election audit § Ballot scans for 100% audits (given they're best known for their auditing software), or one of the other places where Numbersinstitute has added a mention. Any alternate proposals would also be appreciated! Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, Technology, and Massachusetts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with a redirect. kencf0618 (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2024-10 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colcom Foundation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has a history of promotion through environmental & civic projects. Significant portions of this article are just slightly re-worded from the Cordelia Scaife May page. Aside from the greenwashing and other projects that were listed prior to my removing of them, there is hardly enough for an article here. It was founded by May, funds anti-immigration causes, and received a large sum of money when May died. The only other piece of information here is that the foundation funded groups designated by hate groups by the SPLC, which could obviously be implied from their anti-immigration stance. This article is unnecessary & inherits at least a portion of it's notability from May, who was also the org's chairperson from its founding until her death in 2005. 30Four (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. 30Four (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:CORP and seems to be a significant behind-the-scenes player in U.S. politics. The article could be expanded using sources such as [12][13][14][15]. Nosferattus (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I observe considerable significant coverage to demonstrate the notability of an organization as mentioned in WP:NORG. CresiaBilli (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of multiple throw away !votes recently from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cordelia Scaife May. Reference #1 is a tax form; References #7-9 are foundation's website promoting its philanthropy; References #3, 16 do not mention the subject; References #13, 15 are blogs; References #4, 6, 10-12, 14, 17 are city newspapers on sponsorships and greenwashing. These types of references are aforementioned above. A search for non-local articles that significantly cover the foundation turned up The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Philanthropy News Digest and Inside Philanthropy (The latter is a paragraph in a broader story about CIS and the former two are WP:SPIP.

References #2 and 5 are extensive profiles of the foundation's founder and what happened when she croaked, which is also the majority of her Wikipedia where a merge+expansion is warranted. Notability in not inherited per nominator. Astapor12 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #6 is the Southern Poverty Law Center, not a city newspaper. Reference #13 is not a blog. Reference #10 is definitely about more than just sponsorships and greenwashing. That source is a 1,400 word story about the organization covering its history and impact (and only 2 paragraphs are about Cordelia May). Finally, I don't see how the profile in The Chronicle of Philanthropy is self-promotion. The Chronicle of Philanthropy is a print magazine with actual writers. I don't think a paid promotional piece would mention that May "funded a group that promotes chemical sterilization of women around the world." Nosferattus (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly good coverage in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and other media. --Salamandra-12 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added some new material and sources to the article, mostly about Colcom's grant funding and related impact and controversies. Nosferattus (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon Dapat

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON, electoral organization that failed to win at least one of the possible three seats in congress. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I fail to see how this is "too soon", as the election itself just happened. Sports teams are not sent to AFD as "too soon" if they haven't won a championship yet. Care to send Minnesota Timberwolves to AFD (LOL)? There's one WP:RS used on this article. WP:GNG does not mention how many WP:RS there should be, but this has one. Howard the Duck (talk)

Comment There is nothing much to write about the partylist besides "they ran". Whats up with the double dtandard at 1Munti Partylist's deletion nomination where you do note it didnt win any seats (but to be fair you did not vote gor or against its deletion) and EduAKsyon. Was it because this party is somehow connected to Aksyon Demokratiko (an assertation which seems to be made through an assumption of its founder, Bobbit Roco being a former president). Please at least make it clear why is this any different. I might have overlooked something Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think WP:NPOSSIBLE will save this article. A partylist especially a recently established one isn't usually covered by in real life publications either. So the typical sourcing would be news articles (supplemented by the partylist website if ever) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, this has one WP:RS covering it therefore passing WP:SIGCOV. The others didn't. 1Munti Partylist is a borderline case as it is related to the One Muntinlupa party and if it's the same organization one can argue that it if someone finds WP:RS that passes WP:SIGCOV then it has the same situation as this one. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there is only one RS, that that is insufficient to meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do my search in google and didn't find references which contain significant coverage about the topic and in mentioned references too. Hence, it fails to show WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Fade258 (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second ladies of India

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A niche term at best, a made-up term at worse to promote an Indian counterpart to the American second lady. None of the existing citations mentions the term "second lady" and are only used to support claims that certain persons are wives of the Indian vice president. A search on Google does not yield any evidence of established endonymic usage of the term second lady of India (which is not merely a substitute for vice president wife). Searching "Uprashtrapati Bhawan hostess" also does not yield any quality sources. The role of Second Lady of India (as hostess of the Uparashtrapati Bhavan may not even exist even in unofficial capacity. Or if they do, they don't use the term). Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and India. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This is an ongoing global Wikipedia effort that encompasses the wives of global vice presidents (and other terms). Please see Category:Second ladies and gentlemen of the United States, Category:Spouses of vice presidents by country — Maile (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Commons:Category:Spouses of the Vice President by country has images for these spouses. — Maile (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The premise is flawed. You are operating under the premise that "second lady" (mostly an American-centric term) means the same as vice president spouse. My objection is that the article is largely fiction because there is not a widely documented role of "Uparashtrapati Bhavan hostess" Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The comparison between the (Category:Second ladies and gentlemen of the United States) page or category is not appropriate. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, such a page seems justified, but it requires reliable sources for support. The sources available for this page do not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG, so the page does not fully comply with this guideline. For example, the wife of the U.S. Vice President receives significant news coverage and publicity in India[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30], whereas in India, the wife of the Vice President does not receive similar publicity or news coverage. If there is any coverage, it typically mentions them in connection with their husband. If you believe I am mistaken, please provide 4-5 sources that confirm news coverage specifically for the wife of India's Vice President.-SachinSwami (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - US-centric fictional term. Lijil (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Geez, I don't know and don't think I can !vote one way or the other until digging into the sourcing beyond what we are seeing here, but this is a tough call. On the one hand, the present sources don't seem to provide the focused, subject-oriented coverage we'd normally want to see to support GNG. On the other hand, I just have a hard time believing that we couldn't hit that threshold--not withstanding SachinSwami's observations, which I do consider valuable insight. It's just that we don't necessarily need 4-5 such sources containing detailed coverage. 2-3 and a smattering of other indirect references will probably get this past an initial AfD. It does remain to be demonstrated that this threshold can be met. But I'd be kind of shocked if it couldn't honestly, given the size of India's media market and the footprints of its national political leaders? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as what SachinSwami said the spouse of the vice president of India barely receive any coverage than say the US Second Lady Usha Vance, probably due to her heritage. I might give a nudge that this deletion nomination is for the supposed role of Second Lady of India, not the "vice president's wife". Because the US Second Lady is an actual role with its own proper documentation that is the differentiating factor here. Excluding sources which merely says "woman was Vice President's wife", this article has literal zero sources. The term "second lady" (not as a merely as a substitute term for vice president's wife) does not even get mentioned. Doesn't mean that the United States have a second lady, we got to force one on other countries. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no tradition in India of referring to "First Ladies of India" or "Second Ladies of India." No major Indian newspaper or news channel uses these terms in their reporting. At most, one or two sources might mention "First Ladies of India," but these are insufficient to support such claims, even on Wikipedia. However, if any sources explicitly use "Second Ladies of India," please provide them. Typically, sources refer to the wife of the President or Vice President as such, and only in contexts where they accompany the President or Vice President at official, political, or private events. SachinSwami (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that is the thing. First ladies and gentlemen of India have at least the Indian Express and Mint mentioning the concept of a "First Lady of India". Second lady there is none at all.

So if even if the First Lady counterpart is rarely used or noted consistently by the Indian median then the First lady article should be instead "spouses of the president of India" (not deleted since spouses of world leaders do receive significant coverage, but that's a conversation for another day). Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a lengthy list of candidates per constituency in last year's UK general election. It is all sourced to a single website. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY: it is not an encyclopaedia article and is better suited to Wikidata. We have all this information elsewhere (in the individual constituency articles) if someone wants to find out who stood in a particular constituency. What is the value of having it all in big Wikipedia tables repeated here? Bondegezou (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Bondegezou (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it helpful on numerous occasions in my work, it saves me so much time rather than having to go into individual constituencies to find out. It exists for countless other countries and deleting it would only hinder. I would agree that if it were being created now then it would be problematic but it would ADD burdens, admittedly for only a few people but us nevertheless, rather than making anything more simple or easier to use. Please keep this genuinely very helpful article. Kepleo123 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a valid navigational article, even if it might need additional sources beyond the single one. A merge is not a good option because the other article is too long already. SportingFlyer T·C 16:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a valid navigational article? Nearly all losing candidates don't have articles to which to navigate, so the main navigation is just to the winner, but we already have List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election that covers that. How many different ways do we need the same information? Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What is it's value? Its value is in its use. I use the page regularly to access information. I find it an invaluable resource. We would not want to delete something if there is data showing that the page is well used. No data is being provided to justify its deletion. Graemp (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because nearly all of them don't doesn't mean there's anything at all invalid about this particular article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and seeing as there is one single source for all this information it may fall in a grey area copyright-wise per WP:ONESOURCE. Orange sticker (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a database as it's properly contextualised and it's not a resource for conducting business. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those things have anything to do with it being a database or not. WP:NOTDATABASE discourages indiscriminate lists with no context, that's that this article is. Orange sticker (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are other sources available and it's a list of factual information, so there's no copyright issue. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is disputing the veracity of the information but whether this indiscriminate list is encyclopaedic content. To those saying it is useful information, yes, that's why [whocanivotefor.co.uk] went to the trouble of compiling, creating and hosting this list. Wikipedia is not a carbon copy archive of every useful fact on the internet. Orange sticker (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTDATABASE. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 23:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOTDATABASE has been mentioned twice but none of the points there are relevant to this AfD. The more relevant link would seem to be WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Stockhausenfan (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a directory, either - it's a list. SportingFlyer T·C 02:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it's useful and encylopeidc. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this is very useful and if something like this is precluded there should be change in policy. I don't see how it is substantially different from 1982 United States House of Representatives election. I don't know enough about WP:DIRECTORY to have an educated vote here. --Mpen320 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1982 United States House of Representatives election doesn't exist, so I'm unclear what point is being made here? Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sole source of this table has a copyright notice saying it is owned by the Democracy Club Community Interest Company, who sell the data they compile commercially. [31] Should this be brought to WP:CPN? Orange sticker (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The website's design and prose is copyrighted. A publicly available list of names that they took from government sources is not a creative work that can be copyrighted, even if they sell compilations that include it. Reywas92^Talk 14:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's no notability in simply standing for election. As this event has passed, we only need a list of the winners of the election. We aren't an election wiki, listing each and every person that ever ran for an election at any point in time, anywhere on the planet. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to another Wikimedia wiki like Wikidata. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valuable list of information. This page was started after a discussion which involved the splitting of the Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election page. Moondragon21 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions

Refeudalization (via WP:PROD on 23 March 2025)

Politicians

Nick Gradisar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former mayor of a town with a population of ~111k. Looking at a List of mayors of Pueblo, Colorado, the only other one with a Wikipedia page is James Bradley Orman, who later served as Governor of Colorado. I don't think this is an inherently notable position and I don't see how Gradisar rises above any other Pueblo mayor in terms of notability. Also, not that this is relevant to Gradisar's notability as a person, but the article was pretty clearly written by a supporter of Gradisar to promote him. It barely cites any sources and reads like a glowing bio of him you'd find on his personal website. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of international trips made by Humza Yousaf

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fancruft Polygnotus (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Humza Yousaf, there isn't enough there to have a separate article Giuliotf (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Economics, Lists, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling this "fancruft" is rather preposterous and not a rationale for deletion. These sorts of lists are common for world leaders nowadays and I would consider a speedy close if you can't bother writing more than one inapplicable word. But I agree with Giuliotf that this is quite short and can be merged to the main article – Premiership of Humza Yousaf#International visits is the obvious place for this. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 So you are saying this is important information that deserves its place in an encyclopedia? Can you explain why? Yousaf went on 4 short trips abroad, nothing of note happened, and he returned safe and sound. I see it as similar to overly detailed descriptions of Pokemon. It would be worth merging if there was something to merge, but there is nothing of substance here. Am I missing something? Was there a diplomatic incident I am unaware of, was he attacked by a rabbit, did he invent Cubism during one of these trips? Polygnotus (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Ji (Ming dynasty politician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article with little verifiability. Not much to expand on and demonstrate sufficient notability against possible deletion. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Andelman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be notable. My searches on Google came up with only a French article about him receiving an award. The page is heavily edited by the subject of the article. Pxldnky77 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and Journalism. Pxldnky77 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, Massachusetts, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are so many reasons that autobiography is inevitably bad for a non-profit encyclopedia: it involves original research, the subject wants to censor out the uncomfortable truths about themselves, and it's a breach of our charitable status, as self-dealing, which tax status is already being attacked by the richest man in the World and his once again BFF. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Blair Jr.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nomination: Notability questioned: I've searched for sources and I can't find any. I think a Wikidata page is sufficient. (A page with a list of mayors of Williamsburg might also be created, which would list Blair.) ash (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination, although a redirect to the proposed list is reasonable. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many mayoral positions in Colonial America were unelected (other than maybe a local council), undesired, or both (ex: It wasn't uncommon for Philadelphia's selected Mayors of the 1700's to prefer to face criminal charges or flee the area than to take office) so there is likely little significant coverage. While I would usually oppose a list of mayors for a city that hasn't ever reached a population of 20,000 people, Williamsburg probably deserves an exception given its historical significance. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Yar Baloch

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should've been deleted alongside Republic of Balochistan and Balochistan Freedom Declaration last month, and for similar reasons. This was redirected to Republic of Balochistan, then to Operation Herof 2.0, then to Insurgency in Balochistan. While it was a redirect, I nominated it at RfD with the same type of reasoning as what was successfully used against Republic of Balochistan, but I got impatient and later withdrew it and decided to restore the article so it could be speedied under criterion A7, but that one was declined because the sources used (News18, The Economic Times, The Times of India, the Hindustan Times, ANI News and Firstpost) constituted a "credible claim of significance" according to one editor. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Auburn, Washington

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NLIST due to a lack of coverage as a group by reputable sources. The lone book source listed is self-published, and the other sources concern individual mayors rather than the collective group. Disputed PROD. Sounder Bruce 00:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Washington. Sounder Bruce 00:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criteria are being applied in a perverse manner that is inconsistent with Wikipedia practice. See Lists of mayors by country. Mayors are often notable, but certainly a complete list of the holders of a notable local office can generally be established for any decent sized municipality. Per WP:CSC point 2, if for some reason this isn't kept, it should be merged into Auburn, Washington as several of the other lists of mayors are incorporated into their cities' articles. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Auburn, Washington. None of the names on the list is notable enough for their own page, so aggregating them into a standalone list article is pointless. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many, many such mayor lists on Wikipedia. Please see Category:Lists of mayors and Category:Lists of mayors of places in the United States - this is just he tip of the mayoral lists on Wikipedia. We don't have the editorial resources to clean up all of these. Go with the flow of what already exists. — Maile (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extremely misinformed keep rationale. We do have the resources to clean up all of these and we should not just go with the flow because other things exist. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Auburn, Washington. A verifiable list of mayors could be a valid WP:SPINOFF from a main page about a city (alternatively, a list of mayors could be a collapsable list). There may be some desire to clarify NLIST as it applies to lists of officeholders. --Enos733 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Auburn, Washington#Government as is the usual solution for smaller places where neither the mayoralty nor its officeholders are notable. Mangoe (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Ahmad Quraishi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable politician. All sources are either YouTube (not WP:RS) or passing mentions (not WP:SIGCOV). The only English source doesn't even mention Quraishi at all. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Self-published material on YouTube is usually not a reliable source, but a newscast from a television station that is normally considered a reliable source does not stop being reliable just because it is uploaded to YouTube. I have not viewed or analyzed the newscasts cited as references, but I think it is likely that at least some of them are reliable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 14147

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am utterly baffled as to why this Trumpcruft needs its own article. It has barely anything to it. It doesn't have any significant coverage in reliable sources, even from the time of its signing and publication, and it certainly does not have any enduring notability. We already have a very lengthy list of executive orders. We do not need a wee stub for every single one, no matter how insignificant (and this one is so clearly insignificant). Grnrchst (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump Only because it's the first one signed. Nathannah • 📮 02:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump as an ATD. This is clearly non-notable Trumpcruft with no notable sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's memecoin dinner

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another excellent example of Trumpcruft we have here. An article about a dinner.... Half of this article isn't even about the dinner, and instead provides context about Trump's memecoin or pithy reactions from the US opposition and comedians. Almost all of the sources are from around the day of the event, with little to nothing since then. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this was clearly not a significant event with enduring notability. The content worth keeping (if there is any) could easily be merged into the main article about $Trump. Grnrchst (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Cryptocurrency, Politics, Business, Economics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Christ, yes: not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. I don't see why this is notable. — Czello ^(music) 21:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy of an entire article and the topic can be mentioned at $Trump as suggested. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to $Trump per reasons above. Half the article is just giving general background on the memecoin and is not actually about the dinner; the event itself was not very notable. The information about the dinner should be in a section in the memecoin's article and not its own article per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. 2601:402:680:1270:C174:D122:219:19D7 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to $Trump per 2601; this is more background on the coin than about what was not an official state event. Nathannah • 📮 02:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to $Trump: Per the nominator, The content worth keeping (if there is any) could easily be merged into the main article about $Trump. Per WP:ATD-M, we should merge rather than delete when we can. Outside the lede and the 'Trump cryptocurrencies' sub-section, I think that there is sufficient content that could be moved to $Trump. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - without context, it's just a meal; with context, It's number 35. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to $Trump per Super Goku V. KnowDeath (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to $Trump seems best. Moondragon21 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's letter to Ali Khamenei

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has to be one of the best examples of Trumpcruft on Wikipedia. This is article is about a single letter, sent a few months ago. I held off nominating this article for deletion when it was first created, but it's been enough time now that I think it's clear it does not have enduring notability by itself; it has not received any extensive coverage since it was sent. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this was not a significant event. Any information worth keeping can easily be merged into the article on the 2025 United States–Iran negotiations (a subject that does have a more clearly enduring notability). Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Literature, Politics, Iran, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. No reason this letter needs its own article. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested. No need for a separate article. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only if we have WP:RS, but a merge is more preferable to avoid WP:CFORK happening. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep According to WP:NOMERGE, articles that are merged should not be excessively lengthy. Conversely, if an article has the potential for expansion, it should not be deleted. The article 2025 United States–Iran negotiations is lengthy and has the potential for further development. Also, the article about Trump's letter to Ayatollah Khamenei is quite well-known. It is a letter between two important and well-known people. Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Many years have passed since this article was published.GolsaGolsa (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Probably yes, but don't WP:OTHERSTUFF please. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This letter has no notability independent of the greater scope article. A sentence or two about the letter in 2025 United States–Iran negotiations would suffice. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. It was the starting point for the negotiations. If it is merged, and a redirect is created, all original information in this article is saved (through History). If it is deleted, everything is gone. PS Just to be clear, if it is not merged, then Keep! Lova Falk (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This can be covered in 3-4 sentences on the main page. No WP:PAGELENGTH concerns due to the minimal amount of net new content. Longhornsg (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 78.81.123.235 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Parra Vallette

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Chile. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not fail NPOL, as the mayor of a large city in Chile (Viña del Mar). He did so in full capacity following the removal of office of Rodrigo González, who preceded him. Although he was the mayor for only three months, the article could well be expanded using offline sources such as El Mercurio de Valparaíso. --Bedivere (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but 334,248 is not large enough to entitle the mayors to be inherently notable. Let's be consistent with our judgments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put that into perspective then. It's the sixth largest commune in Chile by population. It's a large city in Chile. Bedivere (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Population doesn't mean high notability. Honolulu has a population of 344,967. Viña del Mar has more population than Orlando, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Des Moines and Anchorage, notable U.S. cities. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets enough NPOL, the subject of the biography has held an official position and has received sufficient media coverage. --Carigval.97 (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL is not about holding "an official position". Geschichte (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Luis Trejo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Chile. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody with access to archived Chilean media can write and source something more substantive than this. Mayors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for existing, and have to show significant press coverage enabling us to write a substantive article about their political impact — specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this basically just states that he existed, and just cites the absolute bare minimum of sourcing needed to prevent it from being speedied as completely unsourced, without adding any of the more substantive content or sourcing that we would actually need to see. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article sufficiently meets the notability guidelines for politicians, as it addresses the first topic of politicians who have held province–wide offices, in this case, that of mayor of Viña del Mar.

Just as there are political figures with extensive coverage without holding an official position, in this case, it is a figure with historical notoriety without much media coverage. Carigval.97 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of a city is not a "province-wide" office. It's a local office that falls under NPOL #2, where the notability test depends exclusively on media coverage and cannot be passed without that. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the rules, media coverage is a second important point, not necessary exclusive (that's why I was talking about cases where there are political figures without positions, but with sufficient references). Similarly, that position –mayor of Viña del Mar– is a province-wide office: that important city in Chile is a town in the Province of Valparaíso. Mr. Trejo has encyclopedic relevance as a mayor of a large city in Chile.Carigval.97 (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage is essential to passage of WP:GNG, not a mere option that can be bypassed. NPOL does not say that media coverage is optional; even a politician who does pass NPOL #1 (which a mayor does not) still has to have GNG-worthy sourcing too, and the only pass they get is that as long as their holding of the office is properly verifiable, we don't rush their article into the delete bin for not already being in a better state than it is — we give it time for improvement to a GNG-compliant standard, because it's an automatic given that the article will be improvable.

But mayors don't get the same indulgence: mayors only get articles if and when passage of the criterion for local politicians has already been shown off the bat, because there isn't the same guarantee that every mayor of everywhere can always be improved to a GNG-compliant standard. No politicians, at any level of government, are ever exempted from having to have GNG-worthy media coverage — there are just some levels of government at which the officeholders are given a grace period for improvement, and some levels of office at which they aren't given the same benefit of the doubt, but there is no level of government at which people are exempted from having to cite GNG-worthy sourcing at all.

I don't think you understand the definition of "province-wide", either. The fact that a city is in a province does not render the city's mayor into a province-wide officeholder, as he's mayor of the city and not mayor of the whole province. A province-wide office is one that has province-wide jurisdictional authority, like a governor or a provincial-level legislator, not a mayor of an individual town or city within the province. Mayors are local officeholders under NPOL #2, not province-wide officeholders under NPOL #1, which is precisely why a mayor cannot be exempted from having to pass GNG on media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasons, Bearcat, but Trejo's management as mayor of Viña del Mar is reflected in the document that refers to his social policies regarding legal aid, as well as in press reports that mention his management of the Viña International Festival. The lack of more digital news is due to the fact that the internet was not sufficiently widespread at the time. However, this lack is complemented by sufficient historical documents that do give him prominence in his field: the history of the mayoralty of Viña del Mar.

Regarding "No politicians, at any level of government, are ever exempted from having GNG-worthy media coverage", it's regrettable that there are cases where even long-standing English officials, such as Arthur Henderson, Baron Rowley (Labour), have few references, as well as Sidney Jones, Mayor of Liverpool, who does not register digital press releases, but rather press sources. Despite this, their notability lies in the positions they have held.

Finally, a city's case may remain provincial, but autonomous. Similarly, and being a local city, Viña del Mar is an important cultural and economic location (services, tourism). Based on this, and the fact that Trejo is a politician, the subject of the biography has sufficient notoriety to have held said office, as verified by official digital archives of proven reliability (Universidad Alberto Hurtado and notes from the Judicial Corporation). Carigval.97 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bring up WP:WHATABOUT "arguments". Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not just a matter of media coverage for the tenure of a politician's biography, a mayor in this case. The most important thing here is that "Politicians who have held international, national, or subnational office (such as members of national legislatures, governors, or mayors of large cities) are presumed notable." In this case, Viña del Mar is one of the largest cities in the country and is an integral part of Greater Valparaíso, the second largest urban agglomeration in Chile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igallards7 (talk) 3:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep: per Igallards7. The article has also been significantly expanded since the nomination. Luis7M (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NPOL does not state that mayors of large cities are presumed notable. The correct language in NPOL is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." The language does not specify city size or even position a local government. The standard for all local politicians is what Bearcat describes earlier - the need to "show significant press coverage enabling us to write a substantive article about their political impact." This is true for a mayor of a population of 49, or a population of 32 million. In practice, this means that a local official should meet and possibly exceed WP:GNG to have a stand alone page. --Enos733 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Knochelmann

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Kentucky. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Knochelmann meets the notability guidelines for politicians due to extensive coverage of his tenure in office from local media, such as this article with biographical information. Other articles about his priorities and policies in office include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. I know that this is not a criterion for notability, but as an aside I'll note that Kenton County is the third-most populous county in Kentucky after Jefferson and Fayette; there is substantial public interest in covering the county's leader. Mad Mismagius (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junie Yu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Suffers from WP:BOMBARD. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Philippines. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I can understand the nominator's concern about "WP:BOMBARD" given the initial article creation, it's worth assessing the subject's actual notability separately from how the article came to be.

If Junie Yu indeed meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specifically for politicians, WP:NPOLITICIAN, and general notability, WP:GNG) through verifiable, independent sources, then the article should be kept. The focus should be on the subject's notability, not on the initial submission process.

Let's evaluate based on policy, not just initial impressions.

1bisdak (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Pam Baricuatro also fails WP:NPOL, she's one level of government higher than Yu (city vs municipality), and can be argued she may pass WP:GNG; of course that can definitely be determined by nominating that article for WP:AFD yourself as well.

Looking at the references on this article, it's Facebook, the Bohol provincial government, the Calape municipal government, election results databases, and actual WP:RS provide coverage mostly to his children (LOL?) passing the nursing board exams and being in a national beauty pageant, instead of him personally. There's one reference solely about him where his corruption cases were dismissed. Looking at all of this, delete as having failed WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the 2025 local election results, incumbent vice-mayor Sulpicio Yu Jr. unseated incumbent mayor Julius Caesar Herrera. See also the 2013 Bohol local election results.

Joseph Ntung Ari

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I initially draftified this article, but reverted myself once I realized it is more than 90 days old. Based on the sources cited, the subject is not notable: refs 1, 2, 4, 5 are just quotes from him (not independent), while the other three are not significant coverage. My web search didn't find anything better.

Additionally, the references consistently fail to support the content they are cited for, e.g. ref 1 [32] makes no mention of "Plateau", ref 2 [33] is not about his education at all, ref 3 [34] doesn't mention Plateau, the FRCN, or the NTA. If editors find sufficient sources to deem the subject notable, I ask that the article still be draftified until it is completely rewritten using only information supported by reliable sources. Toadspike [Talk] 21:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is clearly notable as per WP:NBASIC, as being a director general of Industrial Training Fund (which had significant critical reception) and also satisfies organizational notability under WP:ORG and WP:NORG. The article now contains multiple independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG, which support the content they are cited for (the main reason for sending it to AFD by toadspike). If there were concerns about sourcing, a maintenance tag under WP:VERIFY would have been more appropriate than AfD. Still, it's valid to seek wider input. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 23:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Toadspike [Talk] 21:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Fails WP:GNG. Shoerack (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a lengthy list of candidates per constituency in last year's UK general election. It is all sourced to a single website. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY: it is not an encyclopaedia article and is better suited to Wikidata. We have all this information elsewhere (in the individual constituency articles) if someone wants to find out who stood in a particular constituency. What is the value of having it all in big Wikipedia tables repeated here? Bondegezou (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Bondegezou (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it helpful on numerous occasions in my work, it saves me so much time rather than having to go into individual constituencies to find out. It exists for countless other countries and deleting it would only hinder. I would agree that if it were being created now then it would be problematic but it would ADD burdens, admittedly for only a few people but us nevertheless, rather than making anything more simple or easier to use. Please keep this genuinely very helpful article. Kepleo123 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a valid navigational article, even if it might need additional sources beyond the single one. A merge is not a good option because the other article is too long already. SportingFlyer T·C 16:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a valid navigational article? Nearly all losing candidates don't have articles to which to navigate, so the main navigation is just to the winner, but we already have List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election that covers that. How many different ways do we need the same information? Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What is it's value? Its value is in its use. I use the page regularly to access information. I find it an invaluable resource. We would not want to delete something if there is data showing that the page is well used. No data is being provided to justify its deletion. Graemp (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because nearly all of them don't doesn't mean there's anything at all invalid about this particular article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and seeing as there is one single source for all this information it may fall in a grey area copyright-wise per WP:ONESOURCE. Orange sticker (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a database as it's properly contextualised and it's not a resource for conducting business. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those things have anything to do with it being a database or not. WP:NOTDATABASE discourages indiscriminate lists with no context, that's that this article is. Orange sticker (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are other sources available and it's a list of factual information, so there's no copyright issue. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is disputing the veracity of the information but whether this indiscriminate list is encyclopaedic content. To those saying it is useful information, yes, that's why [whocanivotefor.co.uk] went to the trouble of compiling, creating and hosting this list. Wikipedia is not a carbon copy archive of every useful fact on the internet. Orange sticker (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTDATABASE. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 23:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOTDATABASE has been mentioned twice but none of the points there are relevant to this AfD. The more relevant link would seem to be WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Stockhausenfan (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a directory, either - it's a list. SportingFlyer T·C 02:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it's useful and encylopeidc. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this is very useful and if something like this is precluded there should be change in policy. I don't see how it is substantially different from 1982 United States House of Representatives election. I don't know enough about WP:DIRECTORY to have an educated vote here. --Mpen320 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1982 United States House of Representatives election doesn't exist, so I'm unclear what point is being made here? Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sole source of this table has a copyright notice saying it is owned by the Democracy Club Community Interest Company, who sell the data they compile commercially. [35] Should this be brought to WP:CPN? Orange sticker (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The website's design and prose is copyrighted. A publicly available list of names that they took from government sources is not a creative work that can be copyrighted, even if they sell compilations that include it. Reywas92^Talk 14:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's no notability in simply standing for election. As this event has passed, we only need a list of the winners of the election. We aren't an election wiki, listing each and every person that ever ran for an election at any point in time, anywhere on the planet. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to another Wikimedia wiki like Wikidata. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valuable list of information. This page was started after a discussion which involved the splitting of the Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election page. Moondragon21 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donn Favis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to pass WP:NPOL as an unelected member to a national body, and city council position is not inherently notable. Coverage all focuses on either failed congressional campaign or general coverage of the Marikina City Council. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and redirect to Marikina#Local government: Still a major figure in local politics; gaining notability in the foreseeable future is not out of the equation. On a related note, if that is the threshold, then Xyza Diazen should also be rediscussed.

TofuMuncher (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TofuMuncher if you want to take action on that page you can. Politicians have notability requirements, where if they hold a certain position they can be considered automatically notable, but they can still be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

Redirects

^ https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/12/new-york-lawsuit-2024-election/

[1] ttps://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/12/new-york-lawsuit-2024-election/

[1]

Politics

Continuing revisions with assistance

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects