Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenet Media

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 Keep per WP:SNOW. A move can be discussed separately.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Tenet Media (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)

Company may fall under issues related to WP:ILLCON. At present, all sources on the page are related to a current DOJ indictment. I have searched for articles discussing the organization published prior to September 1 and have been unable to find anything establishing notability (which is honestly surprising). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Chen. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename. If you don't like the article being about the organization, perhaps you should change the article title to 2024 Tenet Media investigation or 2024 DoJ Russian influence investigation, which most certainly is notable. Just because something's recent or in the news does not mean it's not notable. — The Anome (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is a tough one, I guess they can't be notable for simply being investigated, but there is tooooooo much coverage of it happening to not be notable, somehow. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems like a good choice, probably to a new "Russian influcence" as suggested; I don't think this will be the only such outlet to get investigated. This seems to be a big thing that will involve many more outlets... Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Anome Andre🚐 18:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but supporting a move to 2024 Tenet Media investigation, since that is the one thing the company appears to be notable for. Cortador (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep topic of a current event and a canonical destination for domain redirects. Premature narrowing of scope to naming one investigation is a non-NPOV act, topic is too new to assume that's the only notability. Tantek (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename 2024 Tenet Media investigation per The Anome and Cortador. Sal2100 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is established, and stating to also look at the AfD for Lauren Chen is more about finding which sources should go where (if not for both). Discussion about merging into one article should be separate from this AfD. – The Grid (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Has notability for the company been established, or has the notability of the event been established? The indictment and event is notable, but that doesn't make the company (or Chen) inherently notable. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Patently ridiculous deletion rationale. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - good grief. Is this a parody? Nfitz (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the knowledge is important. I came here first when I heard the news to learn more. RJX74 (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Keep, the only people who want this taken down are the Russian government. In all seriousness, this is a very important, and historical story PaulPachad (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Widely covered, evidently noteworthy. It's conceivable that the topic could better be discussed under another name or as part of a different article, but that's not a given (and we don't need to decide that here and now). XOR'easter (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant public interest. Obscurasky (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nashhinton (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly in the public interest at this point Redgon (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Keep or potentially move. Coverage of the scandal, even if not about the company itself, is at least sufficient. seefooddiet (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable and article could be expanded to include the history prior to the scandal Isla🏳️‍⚧ 10:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is unambiguously notable with hundreds if not thousands of related news stories in recent days. As for the argument that there aren't a lot of sources discussing the company prior to September 1, therefore it should be deleted, I don't find that argument particularly persuasive. It seems like the owners of Tenet might have had good reason not to widely publicise its existence so the lack of news stories wouldn't seem like sufficient grounds to delete the article. I do agree though with what several have said above though that the article should be expanded to include more information and history of the company prior to the scandal. ZEQFS (talk) 2024-09-07 13:12 (UTC)
• Keep (and possibly rename). At the time of nomination, this article easily passed GNG, so the nomination violates policy right there. We are supposed to fix, not delete, content that may not be perfect, and that includes new articles. Bogus MfD and AfD nominations should boomerang resoundingly enough that they stop being such a common practice. Ask ONE question "Does this pass GNG?" If it does, do not nominate it. Even if it has very serious problems that cannot be remedied easily (by adding sourcing or simply deleting serious BLP violations), other options than deletion are available, such as sending it back to userspace or draftspace. These bogus nominations are a serious deterrent and discouragement to the efforts of good faith editors who work hard to create our articles. They are a personal affront to them, so don't do it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, Valjean! Thank you for raising your concerns. I brought this article to AfD not necessarily because I believed the allegations were non-notable but rather because of concerns focusing on the company and individual, which potentially brings up issues related to ILLCON, BLPCRIME, etc., which has not been addressed in this AfD, save for the comments about renaming the page, which I would happily agree to. Otherwise, the question remains regarding whether the company (and person, Lauren Chen) were notable prior to the investigation. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Valjean. Thriley (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I came to wikipedia to find this info, demonstrating interest 01:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.65.143 (talk)
• Keep This article is absolutely vital. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 06:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - at what point can we close this discussion? Superb Owl (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article is important, the fact that most links are related to the DOJ indictment is not reason enough to remove it. Michail (blah) 09:34, 8 September 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.