Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Intercepts on Michael Flynn


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian Intercepts on Michael Flynn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

STOP. CREATING. A. NEW. ARTICLE. FOR. EVERY. DAILY. TRUMP. HEADLINE.

Seriously, this belongs in Michael T. Flynn or in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, not in a new article. — JFG talk 01:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It isn't so much that every new article is an important article, but that there has been multiple huge news stories that are notable enough for their own articles in quick succession. I wouldn't be against a future merge in theory, but it's definitely notable as an article. We've just had so many large reports in the last couple of days. I wouldn't consider this week normal in the slightest. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But a news story doesn't make an article. Again, we have perfectly fine articles in which to insert this piece of news in a paragraph or two. — JFG talk 02:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A paragraph or two? Try a sentence. ~Awilley (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was feeling generous… — JFG talk 02:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge - this is really a merge discussion, right? It doesn't seem to be a proposal to delete. Maybe this is the wrong place; WP:PM. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge Not notable enough for its own article. From what I gather, an unidentified source said that unidentified Russian generals were bragging about something. ~Awilley (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Ludicrously too soon. It has only a single source, one that that is full of unidentified "a source says", "a source tells" stuff (the other "sources" are not sources at all - they merely repeat the CNN one). Is this a case of trawling through today's news and see what article you can create out of it? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Use existing articles. Every day's headline doesn't require its own page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Pronto before the masses show up because IT IS POORLY SOURCED. Cudos to nom for doing this by night, thought it does have a Sanhedrin-ish feel.  d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  02:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment on my insomnia activities, and educating me about the Sanhedrin! — JFG talk 03:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge as nom said, does not require its own article and could be possibly merged elsewhere. Others have raised valid WP:NOTNEWS points though as well that are worth considering (hence the 'delete' part of vote). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Lepricavark (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom.Casprings (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (preferred) or merge to Michael T. Flynn (since it's not only about the election) per all above. ansh 666 22:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Nom captures my sentiment perfectly. This endless stream of Trump-related articles is getting rather tedious. Some editors really need to familiarise themselves with WP:NOTNEWS. AusLondonder (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge, to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Whatever material is not there, can be preserved, there. Sagecandor (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete & cover in respective articles. I'm wondering if setting up deletion sorting page for Trump-related deletion discussions is appropriate at this point. I've voted on three in the past two days. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - as my nomination. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:36, 27 May 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.