Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Ligma


 * 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. Consensus is still divided between "keep" and "merge" after the relist. A discussion about merging can continue in the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉  (HAPPY 2023) 11:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Rahul Ligma

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Received a short burst/spike of news reports last month and not much more. Suggest delete or merge per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. –– FormalDude  (talk)  08:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fictional elements, News media, Events,  and Companies. –– FormalDude   (talk)  08:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge a short symmary to Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk. Could be WP:TOOSOON, memes and such can be notable, but twe are indeed WP:NOTNEWS. But it does represent the controversy and cultural impact of Musk's layoffs at Twitter, a topic that could even deserve its own stand-alone article. I'd rather see this merged and redirected than erased. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk as proposed. As the nominator notes, there was a good bit of news coverage, but I doubt this specific aspect of the acquisition imbroglio will have lasting significance to warrant a separate article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. This poor guy can't catch a break: first he's fired from Twitter, then laid off from FTX, and now he's having his Wikipedia page deleted! How could we delete what The India Times calls "one of the greatest pranks on the internet"? As the Ligma meme and the FTX firing fall outside the lines of the Twitter acquisition, merging there would lose important before-and-after context. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE I think Keep is better than merging there (or to Media prank or Culture jamming) as we would run up against weight and coatrack issues and have to trim quite a bit. A standalone page is the best way to WP:PRESERVE everything. As page creator. BBQboffin (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The character has appeared twice now in both FTX and Twitter, so it's not one of these "one event" type scenarios that requires lots of bars to be surpassed. Nor is it a BLP1E, considering it's a fictional person. Therefore all I think we need here is significant coverage, which exists. CT55555 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But, a lack of any WP:LASTING coverage suggests that topic is not notable. –– FormalDude  (talk)  03:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:LASTING is something we should consider for event articles. If this was an event article, I would say it was too early to know if this was lasting. As it is not an event article, I will instead just point to WP:GNG as what I consider to be the appropriate guidance. CT55555  (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You just said it wasn't a "one event" type scenario because there were two events (at Twitter and FTX). Now you're saying neither was an event? I should mention the requirement of having WP:SUSTAINED coverage also applies to GNG. –– FormalDude  (talk)  03:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is not about an event. It is about topic whose notability stems from multiple events. Therefore the common reasons used to justify deleting and article because it is connected to just one event cannot be used.
 * I hope I'm being clear. If I'm not, then just take away this main point: I think this passes WP:GNG. It's OK for us to disagree, but I don't want to stray into bludgeoning here, so hopefully this is my last comment. CT55555 (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I just don't understand how you think a couple news reports from last month and nothing else is a sign of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. –– FormalDude  (talk)  23:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk A one time reaction character is not notable because of WP:NTEMP. A guy doing a Ligma joke is not something that fits here
 * Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is perfectly consistent with what Wikipedia covers, in my opinion. Dingolover6969 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for a few more days/week to break the logjam between those advocating Keep and those seeking a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Articles do not lose their notability, and I agree WP:LASTING was written with events in mind and not people. I would not be opposed to a merge though, given that I think it could be better suited in another article Rlink2 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rlink2 This is more about an event than a person. Fictional person (performance, meme) is an event, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Even as a hoax, the spirit of WP:BLP1E applies. We cover individuals when they have attracted more than 15 minutes of fame. If they only receive a burst of news coverage around one event, we mention it as part of a broader topic, if at all. I am fine with a merge if someone can make it fit. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you catch that there was two events? One about Twitter and one about the crypto company? CT55555 (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Three events if you count the fictional re-hiring, which was being reported on as actual news on November 16-17 by several outlets almost three weeks after the initial October 28 prank, and then there's the November 23 Daily Beast story on it. That's WP:SUSTAINED enough, isn't it? Also the presidential run but that might be too WP:PROMO to put in the article although it's quite funny and the linked Twitter accounts are those of the actors themselves. BBQboffin (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to me to be part of the same event, not sustained. Just covering a story that developed over few weeks. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. This article's subject is a satirical fictionalized persona, much like Stephen Colbert (character). WP:DEL-REASON#8 is specific that we should delete if the article subject fails the relevant notability guideline; rather stretching the scope of WP:NEVENT (the notability guideline relevant to events) or WP:NBIO (the notability guideline relevant to real people) in judging this article's notability, it's more appropriate to judge this article's subject in light of the WP:GNG. And, through that lens, the fictionalized persona clearly passes the relevant notability criteria, having been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources. WP:NOTNEWS does not seem an impediment here either; this article is not original reporting, written in news style, celebrity gossip, nor a violation of WP:NOTWHOSWHO.The ultimate question here is whether it's wiser to merge our coverage of this persona into another article on the basis that the persona is better covered in that article. And, while I'd be tempted to do that if this persona only were covered in the context of the Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk or some greater Twitter-related shebang, I don't see how that would be an improvement to our encyclopedia when the character is also covered in the context of the FTX collapse. In my view, it would be better to have coverage of this persona in a standalone article, rather than having our coverage be merely scattered about in multiple articles that the current standalone one would have to be merged into. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 08:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely narrow construing of WP:NOTNEWS. Topics like this one that have only received routine, short-lived news coverage are often considered a violation of that policy.
 * Furthermore, even if we don't apply anything besides GNG, WP:SUSTAINED is a requirement of GNG. Can you explain if you think this topic has sustained coverage and why? ––FormalDude (talk)  08:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's surely too early to know if coverage will be sustained, but I don't consider that a good reason to delete, more a reason to wait and see. Can you imagine how weird the encyclopedia would be if everything that had not yet got sustained coverage was deleted? CT55555 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How is one month not enough? Two weeks of news followed by two weeks of silence is evidence that the coverage is not sustained. If it was, there would be new coverage coming out by now. ––FormalDude (talk)  18:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your analysis. I consider it normal that something will have gaps in coverage for a few weeks. This reminds me of the conversation that occurred at similarly satirical page Jorts when so many were convinced coverage would fade. CT55555 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And what is the harm in merging the content until there is sufficient evidence of lasting coverage? ––FormalDude (talk)  18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt any path forward would cause harm, maybe deleting would if we really stretched the meaning of harm. Harm avoidance isn't the basis of my argument. Following WP:GNG is my theme here. We're not agreeing and repeating ourselves further seems unlikely to bring us to consensus. I will try to make this my last comment and I hope we can leave this with an agree-to-disagree type situation please. CT55555 (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's an utterly reasonable reading of WP:NOTNEWS. You're free to disagree, of course, but I see no reason that the significant coverage of this character in the context of multiple events is somehow reduced to a routine dog-bites-man-level story. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more round. Consensus seems to be roughly divided between "keep" and "merge". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Red-tailed hawk and BBQboffin. Kablammo (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge I simply don't think there is enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage here. The FTX stuff was less than a month after the initial Twitter incident. If they keep receiving coverage for future incidents then maybe it will deserve an article, but I don't think the current coverage justifies more than a few sentences at most. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment from 4 days ago https://freebeacon.com/culture/2022-man-of-the-year-rahul-ligma-and-daniel-johnson/ <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliable source and they're not even reporting anything new... ––FormalDude (talk)  07:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not listed as a depreciated or reliable source, we are therefore expected to use our judgement. I see no reason to discount it as a source, I'm not using it to cite something, and I'm posting this to show that coverage is sustained, which is something you challenged above. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I already !voted delete above, but want to make it clear that a merge would work. I agree with Hemiauchenia, and a few weeks of fame is not sustained coverage. WP:BLP asks for a lot more, and we should wait to see if anyone is still talking about this person in a year. A merge allows us to revisit this when those sources come. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate how you think "a merge would work" as at present the Twitter acquisition makes no mention of the subject. If you "agree with Hemiauchenia" that the character justifies "a few sentences at most" that evisceration of content and sources (there are 27 currently) would be extreme. I appreciate your candor in your delete !vote as that is what "merge" really is. I realize I can make no demands on your time, but I would present as an open challenge to any editor here to please summarize in "a few sentences" the content and context of the existing article that would be an improvement on the standalone page. We're WP:NOTPAPER here, and if it takes a few paragraphs to include everything, well, electrons are cheap. BBQboffin (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge means you move content from here to an existing article... the existing article doesn't have to have any mention of the merged topic beforehand, it just has to be a suitable destination for the content by scope. ––FormalDude (talk)  22:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, a merge is a merge, and sometimes a compromise to deletion. Take this as a reminder to WP:AGF and look for WP:CONSENSUS, instead of turning AFD into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Some topics fail WP:NOTNEWS and we don't create separate articles for each and every burst of media coverage. But sometimes that coverage might be briefly summarized as part of a WP:SUSTAINED article topic. The main Twitter acquisition article has had sustained coverage almost all year, and sources will likely analyze it for years to come. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an important story of media bias causing generalised media failures, one of the most important topics of the decade.Tallard (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There is one article in TechCrunch dated December 24, "This year in tech felt like a simulation", which mentions Rahul Ligma in the context of "absurd events in tech" and their implications including fraud. Simply merging the content into the Twitter acquisition article and the FTX article buries the bigger picture story about the failure of the media to reliably report the news (and detracts from the serious coverage of those other topics). While I'm personally not a fan of giving undue credence to pranks, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to delete, and in this case it was more than just a single incident, with follow-up reporting required in many cases by the media to critique and/or admit failure (though I am also slightly disappointed there isn't a bit more analysis of that). Cielquiparle (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk and delete. Lots of dancing around various guidelines as everyone tries to exclude ones (e.g. NBIO, NEVENT, NOTNEWS) that show it doesn't meet our notability criteria and pushing others (e.g. GNG. ?). For me, this topic is the very definition of why WP:NEVENT was written. It was a good prank, that's it. Everyone has already forgotten about it and most who recall the *event* (or prank) wouldn't even remember the names two weeks later anyway. I've !voted for a merge because at best, this might be worthy of a small mention in the overall Acquisition by Musk topic. That's not to say that I think the entire article should be merged, I'd be happy with a two sentence summary to say that two guys pranked the media after the layoffs and the media ran with the story without checking any of what they had said. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 11:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a joke. It got a lot of attention. It's not Flying Spaghetti Monster level of attention, but it's still enough to meet the GNG and no part of NOT applies. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.