From 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 Lloyd Austin. Daniel ( talk) 21:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Lloyd Austin hospitalization controversy

Lloyd Austin hospitalization controversy (  | 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)

Seems to tick most of the boxes in WP:NOTNEWS. At this moment I don't see any reason for this to have its own article, when a few lines in the main Lloyd Austin article should more than suffice. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Changed my Delete to Merge, based on the majority of the input here. — Maile ( talk) 23:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge is fine. "Guy goes to hospital and doesn't tell people about it" isn't notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is likely to be just a few lines in Secretary Austin's personal life section in the end; right now it's yet another overheated story about a telephone game-like failure to communicate because it's Washington and political journalists refuse to just let someone heal from life-threatening surgery, nor not make a news cycle about it (and incredibly wrongly described; how can it be the secretary's fault when he's bedridden and his PAs don't communicate that well?). Nate ( chatter) 01:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Your last sentence is irrelevant to this discussion, but this is not a fair characterization of the issue; Austin had several instances in which he could have brought up his planned prostatectomy but failed to. Austin is notoriously secretive. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP This is very important. Every day since the hospitalization was announced, it has been mentioned on every news channel in the U.S. every single hour. This is clearly important. 209.6.153.165 ( talk) 01:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Kingoflettuce KEEPwhich boxes? I see a wonderful article. 209.6.153.165 ( talk) 01:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Duplicate vote! struck. Nate ( chatter) 02:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • It is clearly an important topic, but depending on the outcome if some people believe that it may not be independently notable then merging should be an option rather than deleting it. Keivan.f Talk 06:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    My thoughts exactly, but I don't see this meriting anything more than a merger. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I think anything here could be merged into the existing section on Austin's page; so far, it seems like a news cycle doing its thing. Nothing wrong with that, but it can be better summarised for readers in a smaller, less intensely detailed section. Gazamp ( talk) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy merge/delete Once again we see this user racing to create an article about a current event before it's needed. Sure it's an important topic – one that can be (and is) covered at Lloyd Austin. Countless cabinet secretaries have had major and minor scandals that hit the news cycle, but that does not mean they need separate duplicative articles. Reywas92 Talk 05:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply
If I had "raced" to create the article, it would have been created days prior. The breadth of reactions and inquiries suggested to me that this was not going to be a one-off event. Keep your differences in opinion to differences in opinion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP This is a major issue; note that anyone under Austin's command when he was a general could be court-martialed for dereliction of duty, i.e. being AWOL (absent without leave) for three days. MERGE might be appropriate once time passes, as this is still a developing current event.-- FeralOink ( talk) 19:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I'm shocked that the US Armed Forces do not, in your opinion, recognise medical leave even for what appears to have been a medical emergency! Shame on them! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
      Hi @ Necrothesp,
      Please do not use the discussion as a soapbox for the topic (see WP:SOAP).
      Best,
      @ Avishai11
      Avishai11 ( talk) 17:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
      Good grief, it's called sarcasm! A response to a clearly daft comment. I really don't give a monkey's about what Lloyd Austin may or may not have done. It's a proverbial storm in a teacup. Which was my point. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 18:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Hardly worth a full-scale article. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Lloyd Austin. This feels like WP:NOTNEWS and if this becomes a more significant issue, it will likely be under another title. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Definitely does not need it's own article, this could be a paragraph in the Lloyd Austin article, maybe a new section there at most. Mighty Midas ( talk) 21:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
KEEP very important as people may be court-martialed. Avishai11 ( talk) 22:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Extremely spurious rationale... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 13:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply
We are hearing new revelations each day about the situation, so I believe we should keep and wait. Avishai11 ( talk) 19:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Not notable on its own. Intothat darkness 19:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge a properly sourced summary to Lloyd Austin. This is NOTNEWS as a stand alone article and an unneeded CFORK from the main article.  //  Timothy ::  talk  10:09, 19 January 2024 (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.