Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Republican group chat leaks: Difference between revisions

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia’s content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Young Republican group chat leaks (edit | 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)

Does not need to be a separate page. Could easily fit into Young Republicans elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 06:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom and should be merged into the Young Republicans page. Aesurias (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Repulicans Telegram chat leak should not be deleted. It is a developing story of the consequences and aftermath of hateful, racist, anti-semetic, and violent language present within a small bit sizeable faction of Young Republicans. I strongly urge Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation to not delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B02D:B68B:0:51:A025:AE01 (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This leak is a short-term news story without proven long-term impact, per WP:NOTNEWS. It fits easily as a section in the main group’s article to avoid WP:UNDUE weight on one scandal. See similar cases like 2024 United States presidential election protests merged into bigger topics. No need for standalone page yet. Freeatlastforever (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:Credible claim of significance so this can be adequately merged. 182.185.42.137 (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Keep separate article to document the reaction, implications. People getting fired, VP pretending racism, antisemitism, wishing people commit suicide is just kids’ talk. Revisit in 6 months or a year to see if it was a nothingburger, then marge with YR if true. Doug Grinbergs (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you can contribute content to hard-to-figure-out Wikidata (:-( sister article Q136511483 Doug Grinbergs (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you are even supposed to model this tbh Trade (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – per nom. I don’t see why this would be independently notable from the Young Republicans org as a whole. Besides, the Young Republicans page could do with more content anyway. – Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge: all of the contents of this article is relevant and notable, but the Young Republicans article is short anyway and the addition of this text wouldn’t make it long enough to warrant breaking anything out into a separate page. The notability of this specific leak isn’t about the leak itself but rather the views of the group, people within it and the wider party. Gurkubondinn (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is clearly a relevant subject that is worthy of mention on Wikipedia. Personally, I am politically conservative, but I do not think that information should be censored just because they make some people who agree with me ideologically look bad. Let’s avoid partisanship by retaining this article. TorahRight (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, this is a fresh news event without proven lasting impact per WP:NOTNEWS. No censorship. Merge to avoid WP:UNDUE weight on one scandal. See WP:EVENT for guidelines. Freeatlastforever (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge the main YR page can easily handle the full article as is. Nevermore27 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – No reason why this cannot fit into the main article–Trade (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There’s a lot of information here that wouldn’t fit on the stub Young Republicans page. I’d support keeping it separate for now and simply linking to the incident from the YR page. BootsED (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While there’s detailed info, it fits neatly as a section there without overwhelming the stub page, per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS for recent events. Linking back works fine; no need for standalone yet. See WP:EVENT guidelines. Freeatlastforever (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is a very significant topic that is more than relevant enough to have its own page. Anthonyt31201 (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent scandal lacks enduring notability under WP:NOTNEWS; belongs as section in Young Republicans without WP:UNDUE emphasis on fleeting event. Freeatlastforever (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while it’d be very amusing if the bulk of the Young Republicans article was talking about that one time its members loved Hitler and said slurs a few hundred times, that would probably be ever so slightly WP:UNDUE. 1brianm7 (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that makes me a keep. 1brianm7 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Young Republicans per nom. No lasting notability per WP:NOTNEWS; fits as section there. Freeatlastforever (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t WP:BLUDGEON. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that’s not WP:BLUDGEON. My few short replies just clarify WP:NOTNEWS politely without repeating or overwhelming. See WP:TALK for fair discussion. Freeatlastforever (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Freeatlastforever: How can you tell whether this event will have enduring notability or not? How do you know it is just a “fleeting event”? You seem to be making wild guesses here, and based on what exactly? 172.58.10.83 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m basing this on WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, which say we wait for proof of long-term impact before standalone articles. Right now, it’s just a recent scandal covered in news like Politico, but no clear enduring effects yet. Merging to Young Republicans avoids WP:UNDUE weight on fleeting stuff. Freeatlastforever (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not just been reported on in outlets “like Politico”, there has actually been international coverage from the BBC, The Guardian, various Israeli papers, etc. And again, how are you coming to the conclusion that it is simply “fleeting stuff”? It just looks like you are making massive assumptions based on a WP:CRYSTALBALL. 172.58.10.83 (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While coverage from BBC, The Guardian, Israeli outlets like Haaretz or The Times of Israel shows buzz, WP:NOTNEWS says Wikipedia skips routine scandals without proven endurance per WP:EVENT. I’m basing “fleeting” on lack of long-term proof yet, not WP:CRYSTAL. That’s why merge to Young Republicans fits best, avoiding WP:UNDUE weight on fresh events. Freeatlastforever (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t call this a “routine scandal” by any measure, but sure, okay. 172.58.10.83 (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but per WP:NOTNEWS, this lacks enduring impact for a standalone page Freeatlastforever (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Hard to see this one getting swept under the Republican rug. No anschluss with Young Republicans per WP:BALASP, since it is about twice as lengthy as that article. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It’s really hard to tell right now what the impact of this will be but it could be significant since it’s a developing story. I’d give it at least a few days (a week?) and see if there’s fallout or if it is just one more Lousy Thing That Is Happening In The US. Jessamyn (my talk page) 22:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coolelvin2 — Preceding undated comment added 23:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now – Reassess in a month or two, and then we can properly understand if this incident has had any lasting impact. 172.58.10.83 (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Several members of the group chat have lost their jobs, and Vermont State Senator Samuel Douglass just resigned, not to mention the various responses from Republicans, Democrats, and JD Vance. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Having government official within the groupchat and each of their shared comments is not just WP:NEWS. The scandal spanned nationwide, it’s bound to have it’s own mainspace piece sooner or later. Also, the point of this article not being an anschluss of Young Republicans per WP:BALASP.

HamadInternal (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]