Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gosar Twitter video incident

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 merge to Paul Gosar. After reading through the discussion, it seems like the weight of the policy-based arguments are in favor of merging. I found the WP:CRYSTAL argument particularly unpersuasive. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gosar Twitter video incident

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Paul Gosar Twitter video incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:10YT and WP:NOPAGE. the article is about a minor Twitter tussle/controversy, that no one will care about in a few years. readers would be better served if it was merged/redirected to Paul Gosar's page, where it would be better contextualy situated. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 09:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOPAGE requires three questions to be answered:

  • Does other information provide needed context?
  • Do related topics provide needed context?
  • What sourcing is available now?

Let's start with the sourcing question. Almost all of the sources listed are (using a helper usermade script) shown to be considered generally reliable, or are not listed over at WP:RSP. That's a good start. Now, we have to tackle the remaining two questions regarding needed context. The first one "Does other information provide needed context?" basically asks if a notable topic would fit better on another page, as the other page has context and other details that are not in this article. That is not the case: the 'Background' section is good at giving us some context regarding the incident. The second one "Do related topics provide needed context?" is entirely irrelevant, as we are not referring to a bunch of different articles regarding hypothetically different anime attack videos posted to Twitter by Gosar and/or his team. In turn, both 10YT and NOPAGE are basically nullified, because the article fits both of those. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When merging, we can redirect as well; article history will be saved; also see WP:MAD. Iseult Δx parlez moi 03:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Paul Gosar: There are comments above saying this video had "impact" and stands on it's own. I don't see that. While entertaining, it seems very flash-in-a-pan. Nweil (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIZE as the target article is already over 100 KB. I also agree with the notion of WP:CRYSTAL which is mentioned under the explanatory essay WP:10YT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Paul Gosar I agree, not much to this flash in the news. Just mention it in the guy's article. Dream Focus 06:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIZE and WP:EVENT. There have been a total of a mere 25 times since the time the Constitution of the United States became effective in 1789 that an individual has been censured in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is certainly not a routine event, given that it led to the censure of Paul Gosar. This is an event that has national geographic scope within the United States, and the fact that the incident sparked the censure of a sitting member of the House of Representatives shows that the incident clearly acted as a precedent or catalyst for something else with WP:LASTING implications. As such, the article subject meets WP:NEVENT's notability threshold of being an event that was significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. The proposed merge target is simply WP:TOOBIG at its current size to handle a substantial merge from this article. As such, the article is both notable and has no suitable merge target, so it should be kept at this time. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhawk10, Out of the 25 censures, only four, including the article under discussion, have related articles. The three of them, the caning of Charles Sumner, the Crédit Mobilier scandal and the 1983 congressional page sex scandal were all notable in their own right, unrelated to the censuring itself. This case is more like the other 21 censures due to unparliamentary language and other such offences that are better covered on the individual's page. Paul Gosar's page's arguably already covers the event in appropriate detail, and merging or redirecting isn't going increase the size by any appreciable amount. So it does have an appropriate merge/redirect target. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 04:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this was a flash in the pan, and should really only be covered proportionately in the main article. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see if WP:NOTNEWS actually does apply:
    • No original promoting: All of the article's paragraphs are properly cited and/or attributed to another source, so this point is moot.
    • News reports: This isn't a routine "makes the news" event, so this point is also moot
    • Who's who: Both parties (pun unintended) in this scenario are considered notable (one is the POTUS!)
    • Celebrity gossip: Per the 'Who's who' point, everyone involved is notable, AND the House voted to censure Gosar for this, using a Constitutional ability, transcending this beyond WP:10YT and into WP:LASTING.
    Turns out, NOTNEWS does not apply here. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Does not warrant a standalone article at this time. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at some of the sources (like the NYT and LA times), it appears that the coverage of this goes beyond simple routine coverage. Not to mention that some sources in the article are treating this controversy as not just unique to Paul Gosar as an individual, but treating it somewhat as a wider controversy of the GOP as a whole. HenryTemplo (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per others. I had almost forgotten about this by the time we ran this article on DYK. If it becomes long-term notable we can always break it out again. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is reliably sourced and it's rare to censure a member of Congress so that makes it a notable event. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 16 June 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Gosar_Twitter_video_incident&oldid=1093630570"