Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Washington, D.C.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Washington, D.C.. 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|Washington, D.C.|~~~~}} 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 Washington, D.C.. 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 is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Washington, D.C./archive

Purge page cache

watch

Washington, D.C.

International Franchise Association

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted in 2013 after an AfD. Recreated in 2020. I don't see any reason to dispute the result of that AfD; there is still little in-depth coverage cited on this page. Outside of the Supreme Court case (which appears to have been sparsely covered), the only coverage is a few mentions from minor trade publications. I tried looking for more on Google, but all I could find were press releases. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources is needed to meet WP:GNG. Its small role in a Supreme Court case does not make it notable.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington, D.C.. CptViraj (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Site News

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

Fails GNG. Sources are either non-independent or focused on Ryan Grim. Could be redirected/merged but I am unsure which article a redirect should point to. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:SIGCOV. A handful of references, most of which are articles covering Ryan Grim's departure from The Intercept. This Semafor reference, for example, does not even mention Drop Site News by name (~~its use as a reference for the claim "The Intercept provided startup funding for Drop Site News" therefore also fails verification~~ - has been fixed). Another reference belongs to CounterPunch, a generally unreliable source (WP:COUNTERPUNCH). Another reference, to The Hill, is merely an embedded 10-minute YouTube interview with Ryan Grim. Keeping WP:NPOSSIBLE and WP:ARTN in mind, I should note that I'm unable to find any additional coverage in reliable sources. Almost every reliable (or somewhat-reliable...) source that even contains the text "Drop Site News" has apparently already been included in this article, as best I can tell. As it stands, Drop Site News lacks any kind of notability. A few mentions-in-passing and incredibly brief coverage do not suffice to establish notability. I see some mentions (in talk pages and edit descriptions) of the article's presumed future notability as further sources are anticipated to become available; I think, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, that this is WP:CRYSTAL and not a valid argument for keeping the article. If it becomes notable in the future, it can be recreated. As for the idea of a redirect, I don't think it would be appropriate at this time; instead, mention of Drop Site News could easily be relegated to a few sentences in the respective articles of Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill - I'd be open to being convinced otherwise, though! GhostOfNoMeme 07:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "...therefore also fails verification", sorry, I mixed up the references. Fixed. Legoktm (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well no problem — thanks for fixing. :) GhostOfNoMeme 14:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted elsewhere, I think it's on the edge of notability; I expect outlets like Columbia Journalism Review and Semafor to do in-depth coverage soon enough. I don't object to moving back to draftspace pending said coverage, I largely moved it back into mainspace because the person who originally drafted it was indefinitely blocked for UPE. Legoktm (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to it being moved to draft space until notability can be established. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – notable already with the two writers associated with it — Drop Site News is being searched for here and on the internet, which is how I reached the stub... _ _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Drop Site News does not become notable simply due to the notability of its staff or any other involved persons. See WP:NOTINHERITED. GhostOfNoMeme 15:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since their launch, they've already done foreign reporting using sources within an influential terrorist organization. While that might be of questionable ethical value, depending on how one views the duties of a journalist, it definitely would seem to suggest that they're well-resourced and will continue to do notable cross-border coverage of one sort or another -- which, importantly, they have already done (in other words, we're not predicting the future here). I'd say the article should be kept, even if the outlet in question is unlikely to ever make it onto the list of neutral information sources for other articles. Drabconcert (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete - notability is not established by reliable sources, it is not automatically inherited from its founders, and Wikipedia does not predict the future to say it might be established as notable later on, that's one of the functions of draftspace. The article in its current state is not really about the organization at all, it's a WP:COATRACK for Instagram's takedown of the interview with one of the founders, which happened before this organization even existed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, as fails WP:GNG. At best WP:TOOSOON applies. Brief, trivial, or passing mention so far. Any context needed in a given article can be included in that article (e.g. "is a news website created by 2 guys"). Basically all we know from reliable, independent sources is that it exists, and was founded by 2 notable journalists. It went live less than a fortnight ago, it has only 2 reporters and 1 editor, and it's on based on a Substack platform, making it awfully close to, if not literally, a self-published source. Just as we don't immediately create articles on journalists just because their articles get published in notable outlets, we should not immediately create articles for every website/blog/substack/ created by notable journalists (far too many Wiki articles on outlets and journalists, even notable ones, become trivial, promotional showcases of "on this day, X published an article. Then a few days later, X published another article. Here's the title. Ain't that neat!"). --Animalparty! (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden's July 2024 press conference

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

This is yet another WP:NOTNEWS article created about Biden's cognitive wellbeing through WP:RECENTISM. A press conference, no matter how few he has held, is a WP:ROTM event that will not pass the WP:10YT. Not every thing that is said or done needs to be documented on Wikipedia, let alone receive its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If sources eventually indicate that this was historically significant to the presidential campaign, then we can describe it in the article on the presidential campaign. As it is, it's a pile of news-cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Washington summit and add section As most of the point of the press conference was it was a part of said summit and other leader comments should be added as appropriate, but this needs a shorter summarization. Nate • (chatter) 16:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also sensible. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonder how many press conferences there have been in history. Did we declare war or did Nixon resign again? OK with a section in 2024 Washington Summit if it focuses on the summit, or the presidential campaign if it stays in the news. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need an article for Donald Trump's press conference where he talked about killing COVID with bleach and UV light? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how the witch turned me into a newt. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we need an article on President's Trump statement about COVID, bleach, and UV light because the exact details are being confused by various external articles, social media posts, and so on. There is a midpoint between two polar opposite views on the strange statement. Starlighsky (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a solo press conference that connects to earlier historical events where a U.S. president had made mistakes as well as the issue of presidents who did not run for the next term, which has happened twice so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really an argument that the topic needs to be covered in an article of its own, though. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect to 2024 Washington summit per MrSchimpf. Per nom. and others, case of WP:NOTNEWS. Sal2100 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge to 2024 Washington summit. BD2412 T 18:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2024 Washington summit as others have said. The press conference is one of the biggest headlines out of the Summit, so a mention is warranted there, but as it currently stands there doesn't seem to be enough for a standalone article. If this particular press conference eventually seems to have a significant effect on Biden's campaign/the upcoming election, then a separate article could be warranted, similar to Dean scream. Sewageboy (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Age and health concerns of Joe Biden (currently nominated for deletion but likely to be kept). This would be WP:UNDUE at 2024 Washington summit. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it would be undue at the 2024 Washington summit, where it was held and what it was about? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article about the press conference isn't really about the content of the conference but about Biden's health. The NATO summit is its own topic, notable for reasons unrelated to Biden. A very brief mention might be appropriate, but the bulk of this article clearly doesn't belong there. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good reason to delete and rewrite it for a merge into 2024 Washington summit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Merge whatever you want, but people need to stop making separate pages for every thing that happens in the news. Reywas92^Talk 14:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable event. One out of many press conferences given by the President; had he not flubbed so much during the debate with Trump, this wouldn't even be talked aobut. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete for reasons said above. Not notable enough. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to 2024 Washington summit for reasons noted above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTNEWS. Might be able to be mentioned in a sentence somewhere on the campaign. Might. SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Resolved