Talk:June 2024 United States presidential debate

Unnecessary fork

@ElijahPepe Could you explain why you made this fork for this debate? I know it seems deserving of a separate article now, but a single presidential debate, when there is going to be at least one more, does not have lasting notability; all of this content would be much better merged into the 2024 United States presidential debates article, which is what has always been done in the past. The section for today's debate isn't even very long yet there, and as I said all of this content could easily be fit into that article without size concerns. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any objections to creating an article for this. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm objecting now; you didn't say why we need to fork this article out of the main 2024 debates article; that article only has ~2.5k words, far from being close to splitting range. All of this content could easily fit in the main article, and we don't need a separate article for every event if the content can fit in the main article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You gave this article no more than six minutes to write this comment. Please give this time; it is 11:33 p.m. PDT right now. Clearly, more content can be added. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but more content being added doesn't change the fact that a split was never necessary, nor asserted as being necessary here. You can add to this article all you want, but this article is no where close to, as I said above, reaching splitting range, so even a 10x of this article's readable prose size still wouldn't warrant a split if the content was all in the 2024 debates article. The collaboration of editing has also been taking place primarily on the 2024 United States presidential debates article, so it just seems somewhat pushy to create your own article when you could add all your writing to the main article; that way, we can easily have all the content in the same place on this debate. Instead of leaving this article alone now, where two different reports on the debate are being written, it would be better to redirect this article for now, and see if this notability lasts in a few days, so we can see if this debate is more "special" or notable than any other presidential debate, which as far as I know do not have their own articles. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I think @David O. Johnson gets it, thanks for the A10. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Improper violation of procedure. Voice your opinions at the AfD discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because there's more detail on it than the existing page already. --HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 06:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC) Agreed. Deletion is unnecessary. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC) Disagree. The page is unnecessary and would be better off on the page for 2024 United States presidential debates. This was also done for past debates in prior years and I see no reason to change this format now. Some of the content, especially the "false claims" section can be easily transcribed over to the main page. BootsED (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Disagree unnecessary, unexplained split when split from article has no size concerns. @BootsED, I encourage you to voice your opinion in the AfD so that we can hopefully get this merged quickly. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Disagree This was created after a previous AfD. That AfD should have been respected. This was improper. Now participate in the AfD, not here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)