Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Comey Senate Intelligence Committee testimony


 * 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 redirect to Dismissal of James Comey. The consensus is that this is not appropriate for a separate article, and I agree. There is almost no instance where we go into this level of detailed breakdown of articles about current events. Certainly this will be of historical importance, but only in a more general context. I would normally h closed a situation like this with a merge ( here, to the Dismissal of Conway article), but  for this there does not seem to be anything worth merging, and subsequent events will appropriately add to that article, not to this section.

I do not want to predict whether the Dismissal will prove b itself of historical importance, but it seems simpler to keep it separate for now. But that's not the immediate question, because I don't think it make ssense to redirect  to the main bio  article while the more specific one exists. .  DGG ( talk ) 13:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

James Comey Senate Intelligence Committee testimony

 * – ( View AfD View log  Comey Senate Intelligence Committee testimony Stats )


 * Keep, major event worthy of its own article. Hundreds of reliable sources on topic. Biggest historical event of 2017.Mishigas (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete . Article was created by nom and speedy deleted by . Nom kept removing the CSD tag, which is prohibited by the article creator. Sky  Warrior  03:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I simply suggested we change the tag and assess consensus. If that is a crime, I don't want to be innocent. Mishigas (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This vote fails to supply a rationale for deletion or "merger" (i.e. Deletion de facto) and simply states that the author wants a speedy delete or a merge, without adequae reasons. Mishigas (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and retagged. Let an uninvolved admin decide if CSD is applicable or not. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Note: this vote fails to provide ANY reason for the request to delee. Also, the speedy delete tags were ultimately removed by another editor. Again, I never removed the deletion tags; I merely replaced them with AfD tags so the article would not be deleted in the middle of the nifht without consensus.
 * Comment I still believe the article should probably be deleted due to G5, but I am fine with a selective merge to Dismissal of James Comey, though even if the article is redirected rather than deleted, I can't see how the article is a viable redirect given its length. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I reserve judgment, but  don't speedy delete . This article is sorely lacking, but it may have potential. —Guanaco 04:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if the article wasn't a POV piece, I don't exactly see how this warrants an article separate from Dismissal of James Comey. If anything, we might need to have an article on the investigation and hearings as a whole rather than just his testimony. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, it probably does need to end up merged. Where and what, we can flesh out over the next few days as this deletion discussion attracts a swarm of editors and more secondary sources are published. —Guanaco 04:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I have not yet heard any justification from an editor as to why they "don't exactly see how this warrants an article." What policy are you pointing to that says it doesn't warrant an arricle? It clearly passes GNG. Stuffing it down the memory hole through "merger" (i.e. De facto deletion, lets not split hairs and pretend that merger and deltion are ANY different) doesn't make the event less notable or make it go away. I could find at least 10,000 sources on this event if I had the time. I have not heard one REASOn this should not have an article; I have only heard editors say that they don't want it to have an article "because t should be merged." That isn't a reason; that's just you stating your vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishigas (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Sky  Warrior  04:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Changing !vote to redirect to Dismissal of James Comey, which is what I did in the first place, mainly per . Sky  Warrior  04:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * REDIRECT per SkyWarrior seems reasonable. The current page is turning into a ticker-tape. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * seems reasonable does not tell is why you want to redirect. Ticker tape is a reason to improve the article; it doesnt explain why you feel the article fails GNG. Mishigas (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Obvious redirect to Dismissal of James Comey; come on, do we really need a full article for every little Trump thing that happens? ansh 666 06:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, now that that's dealt with: G5 and then redirect. ansh 666 06:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep this is a blindingly obvious keep. Those who think it should be buried as a 2 sentence mention in comey's dismissal fail to appreciate that other topics were discussed in the testimony, the testimony has major implications for Trump's political future, generated an jotable set of memes, such as Meddlesome priests, Covfefe cocktails, Comey watch parties, and the inexplicable questions of John McCain, and was the political event of the season. On the theory that this event should be deleed, let's delete NFL Superbowl XXXXX or whatever because it could be folded in to NFL 2017-2018 season. There are zero legitimate reasons for deleting this article. Look at the watch party articles I've listed to see how big of a deal this was if you lived in a major city, rather than flyover country, where I assume most of these comments are coming from, since they are otherwise unable to explained. Merger will result in the testimony, a major event in itself,getting an extremely brief mention which fails to accord it its requiste importance commensurate to the huge coverage it has received. The idea that this fails GNG is laughable.Mishigas (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mishigas (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.   Striking out !vote of confirmed sock of .  Sky  Warrior  19:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect per SkyWarrior. I am saying redirect, not merge, because there is nothing worth merging in this POV essay, and the subject can be covered adequately as a section in another article. With regard to the calls for speedy deletion or speedy keep, IMO this is not eligible for speedy anything. But in the meantime, while it is waiting to be redirected, we should trim out the obvious POV material. --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. And if you wonder why I called it a POV essay: you should have seen it before I trimmed it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And just to correct the history above: the article has not been speedy deleted by anybody. User:Narutolovehinata5 blanked the article and requested speedy deletion, but that did not happen. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect this. I wanted to give the author a chance, but he's blocked now and this is going nowhere. If anyone can turn this into a decent article, please do so. But I think the chances are slim; good encyclopedic articles about testimonies are few and far between. The events described in testimony tend to be a much better fit. —Guanaco 08:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect with optional merge. It is definitely notable but we don't need a separate article for this particular part of the story. It should be included with the main coverage. Anything genuinely worthwhile that we have here, that is missing there, can be merged. We don't want fragmentation that makes the subject harder to read about. We don't need an individual article about each individual event. Maybe, if in a few years time, this specific testimony is seen as the fatal blow to Trump then we can revisit this but that certainly does not seen to be the case at the moment. It seems a lot more like just another nail in the inevitable coffin and we don't need an article for each of what is very likely to be a large number of nails. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * At this point an admin may want to consider speedy deletion - since the creator is not only blocked, but blocked on suspicion of being a sock of a well-known anti-Trump vandal, CU-blocked as a sockpuppet of a longtime-banned user, so it may fall under G5. Before being blocked he re-inserted a bunch of POV stuff; I will revert to a somewhat more neutral version. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, this does not qualify for G5 because there has been substantial editing by others. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 *  Speedy delete  now that we know this is Kingshowman. All other substantial contributors have now endorsed speedy deletion. —Guanaco 19:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Dismissal of James Comey. We do not have articles about one person’s testimony in similar articles about Watergate or the Iran-Contra affair, but we should merge and keep the history of this page since James Comey’s testimony this week is very obviously notable and of historical importance — and we may even end up making this article stand alone again should the Dismissal of James Comey article get to be too long. Samboy (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dismissal of James Comey. Clearly a notable topic and may end up as a stand alone article in the future. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Speedy Delete Per WP:G5. AusLondonder (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dismissal of James Comey; this isn't a separate event and it's not yet so long that a separate article is needed for the sake of readability. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The testimony section in the Dismissal of James Comey is already better written than this article. Furthermore, it is likely that James Comey will testify again to either the House or another Senate Committee, making last Thursday's testimony less notable. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dismissal of James Comey - This is clearly notable, but I don't believe it should warrant having its own article. I also believe that the current section of Dismissal of James Comey is well-written enough that merging wouldn't be an appropriate option. Mistbreeze (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect though given what an attractive nuisance it appears to be, I'm worried it'll just be reopened immediately. If that happens, I think there could be some sense in protecting it until there's consensus at the target entry's talk page on how to create a constructive fork (which might happen soon--that page is quite long--but this is not that worthwhile fork.) Innisfree987 (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point it's no longer a speedy case. Redirect this, and if there's anything worth keeping when this closes, merge. —Guanaco 04:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, major event in United States history. This should not be merge as there should be a central location to find information regarding the testimony. 138.162.0.43 (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a central location, though; Dismissal of James Comey would arguably fit that position. Sky  Warrior  15:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dismissal of James Comey. In the long run, even that will probably be merged into James Comey. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dismissal of James Comey. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and there is an appropriate parent article. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect – Nothing to WP:PRESERVE here, that is not already better worded in the main article. — JFG talk 11:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dismissal of James Comey as per above reasoning - GretLomborg (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.