RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Glenn Youngkin

Glenn Youngkin | Result: Deleted

Glenn Youngkin (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Not well written, being a summary rather than covering any missional aspects, the guy is of questionable relevance at the moment, and the page is a troll magnet, being a target of no less than three recurring trolls. I think we'd be better off without this. Plutocow (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

   It's a bland article, but "troll magnet" is usually not a valid reason to delete articles since it can be reverted and protected. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

   Not gonna vote on this since it's mine, however, how many times have we said "improving the article, and when that fails, then try to delete it?" Also, those missional aspects you seem to want in the article, you haven't bothered to even put it when I said I couldn't find it. If you actually spend an hour and can't find it, then maybe it's worth deleting. He also seems to have links to authoritarianism, point #3 of our mission. We have plenty of other articles on subjects that are of the same tier of missionality.

   @LeftyGreenMario Andrew5 (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

2. Bold and brash? More like belongs in the trash.

(Profile) - (Spoke!) 15:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

1. It's really not that good. Youngkin isn't very well-known and this article is just about gubernatorial debates. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 15:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Too encyclopedic. Would support something like WP:TNT though. GeeJayK (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

   The problem for WP:TNT is that in order for it to work, there needs to be a draft already written up and able to be moved to mainspace - which is not the case here. Otherwise, it is very likely to become neglected and then not to be published. Andrew5 (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

3. Not worth keeping. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 19:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Already out of the spotlight. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 19:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

   He might not be "breaking news" the way he normally was, but a Google search of "Glenn Youngkin" shows multiple sources in the last few days, and this one from 13 hours ago also helps contribute to his missionality. I'll add it. Andrew5 (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

5. I personally don't think this article has enough relevancy to remain up nor do I think the article itself is very missional. RationalHindu (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
6. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
7. Give it time. He might be important later, but later is, well...later.-Flandres (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

   I'd argue he's relevant today - this shows quite a few sources to prove he's still in the news, and I have found new sources to show his position on climate change. I also disagree with the sentiment that he has to be making national headlights in order to be relevant enough, plenty of polticians with articles do not have that. I will also cut down on the gubeneternal debate fanfluff and see if it's still an acceptable size. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep

1. VERY relevant currently. Citations are decent, far too good to justify deletion.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 01:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Bongolian (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
3. sorry lgm Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 03:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

   That image is free for anyone else to use. :) --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

4. Unsure of missionality. We have too many pages on one-note politicians who had their limelight in the news for 5 minutes. As of now however I don't see a reason to take a hacksaw to this page yet. Feel like this judgement is best deferred to me ~6 months from now on. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

   I would say 6 at a minimum, and lean towards 7 if not even more. The reason why is because sometimes, he could become missional in the summer, which can "develop" by April or May but not be there yet. As such, I would say 6 months is the least we can wait. Andrew5 (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

5. Inclined to keep for now. We don't know how his governance style yet. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Goat

1. Let's give it a few more months and see if anyone still gives a shit about Virginia politics and their impact (if any) on the national scene. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

   My prediction is that it might. We have to see, for one, how it would be used in campaigning for the 2022 midterms, and what Youngkin does in Virginia. But he doesn't even take office for a month and a half. (Coincidentally this is the month and a half around the winter solstice - daylight will be this level again on that date, just later in the day!) - so it is unfair to make this determination now. If proven to be not missional, that call is probably best left to June, so around 6-7 months away. The problem is users get impatient to take down articles sometimes (this isn't the first aggressive AFD I've seen from this user). Then again, no amount of content can overcome a lack of missionality, hence I might see the need to AFD this in June, or sometime later. Andrew5 (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

2. I want to add in that I cut down on some of the fluff, so it's smaller but is more tightly composed to the more missional aspects and doesn't veer off into off-mission territory. Andrew5 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)