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 Public image of Javier Milei. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies involving Javier Milei[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of those "controversies" have any actual substance to them, or is even worth a standalone article. All of them are just "Politician says X", and "someone somewhere is outraged", or even just "Politician says X". All of them lasted for just some days and died as old news, without any actual consequences. In this day and age, all this stuff is just routine. Heads of state are always saying something, and someone is always reacting to those things said, even if just for a couple of hours.

Note as well that a page "controversial stuff involving a BLP" can easily get carried away into undesired directions.

And note that Trump and Putin, the most controversial world leaders of recent times, do not have any similar articles. Cambalachero (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Economics, and Argentina. Cambalachero (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump has several articles about particular controversies, from mishandling classified information to sexual misconduct to... There is precedent at Wikipedia for these types of articles. That said, quickly glancing over this one, "alleged" this and "alleged" that is different. Trump actually did those things (he denies most of them, but there is at least some proof to the contrary), while this person seems to have just been mentioned in connection with xyz thing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true. I think some content can be merged to Public image of Javier Milei, as suggested by @Pedantic Aristotle, and some may also be relevant for La Libertad Avanza, for example the invistigation also involving the coalition. But just saying that all of them [sic] are just "Politician says X", and "someone somewhere is outraged", or even just "Politician says X" is an exageration. In fact, that may only apply to "Insults to Horacio Rodríguez Larreta", which could be moved at the "Public image" article, since many sources have noted how Milei insulted his political opponents or journalists. Many of them are in fact legal investigations (hence alleged), perhaps his plagiarism can be considered proved (he admitted it for the first case and for the second case reliable sources took it as self-evident) so alleged can be removed, and controversies that attracted significant attention (children and organ trade positions or the state terrorism denialism accusations, etc.), so much so that Milei himself has been described as controversial. So I find the nominator's argument too dismissive. All of this may not warrant its own standalone article but a merge yes; they are acting as though literally none of this has any value or significance. Davide King (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump has articles about specific controversies, with a well defined scope. I meant that there is no parent article "Controversies involving Donald Trump" or similar. Cambalachero (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Could use a rewrite, but most of this seems well-sourced. Perhaps not as NPOV as I'd like, but there is notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with a !merge into the "public image" article as suggested as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Ideally these are merged into different articles, where they can be added in relevant contexts. Some parts could be deleted, and seems more like trivia rather than encyclopedia content. Ideally a lot more content is written, where dedicated articles are created for the more notable topics. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this makes me very uneasy, because it's a BLP list of mainly "alleged" accusations gleened from non-English sources: "Alleged cover-up and illicit association", "Alleged plagiarism for El Cronista and Infobae", "Alleged plagiarism for Pandenomics", "Accusations of alleged state terrorism denialism," "alleged sexual favours", "Alleged sales of candidatures", "Alleged involvement of neo-Nazi and Argentine military dictatorship apologist candidates". Unless proven, this is just political gossip. Political leader or not, since when does English Wikipedia create articles/lists based on rumors and gossip — Maile (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, alleged is used because some of those were followed by investigations, and thus the use of alleged is warranted, so hardly "political gossip". His plagiarism seems to have been confirmed, and his vice-presidential candidate seems to be a proved apologist for the Argentine military dictatorship, so the alleged can be removed if you feel only proved things should be listed. Those relevant to the coalition could also be moved at La Libertad Avanza, and others could be at Public image of Javier Milei, for example for a section about his rethoric and insults, for which he is well known. As for the non-English sources, they are allowed, and it is not like there is literally not a single English-language source... Davide King (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I"ve changed to "Merge", and hope for the best outcome either way. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pedantic Aristotle and Davide King. As suggested above, move content relevant to the coalition to La Libertad Avanza, and the other content to Public image of Javier Milei#Controversies. I agree with the nom.'s rationale in opposition to keeping as a standalone page. Sal2100 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2023 (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.