Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megxit

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Significant opposition to the article certainly exists, frequently citing WP:TOOSOON which, while an essay, elaborates on many valid points about notability guidelines and the policy against unverifiable speculation. But as trivial as the topic may be considered by many, the coverage in reliable sources has been anything but trivial, and those advocating to keep the article have pointed to the sheer volume of detailed information about this specific event. There's a lot of validity to the complaints about the name of the article; good points have been made that Megxit is something of a tabloid creation, but it's clearly being heavily used, though whether it quite meets the "commonly recognizable name" bar of WP:COMMONNAME certainly can be argued either way. Further discussions can potentially be held as to moving it to a less tabloidy title, but even among those advocating a rename in this discussion, there is no particular consensus at all as to what that title might be. Ultimately, there is an increasing consensus, particularly among later participants as the event has developed, that there is sufficient detailed reliable-source coverage to maintain a separate article on this event. ~ mazca talk 12:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megxit

[edit]

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

Megxit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a moment in the lives of two people. One decision. It does not deserve a stand-alone article in an encyclopedia. There is no reason to treat it any differently than, say, Camillagate. Surtsicna (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also something unprecedented in the history of the royal family for senior royals to step down without discussing with the Queen first. This will continue to get coverage and "Megxit" like Brexit will become a well known term. Even if we don't have a article under this title and move it to "Resignation of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" it's clearly something notable. And no doubt this will be getting thousands of searches and people looking for information..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An heir apparent likening himself to a tampon was also quite unprecedented and everyone wanted to know about it but people have moved on. Now it is a footnote in his biography. This is no different. We should stop seeing encyclopedic material where there is none. Surtsicna (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're very much a royalist though, admit it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But then nobody would call me a communist anymore. I quite enjoy the variety. Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1800 views yesterday.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in a few hours the tool will show how many. ⌚️ (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a "draft" can just as easily be written as a section of the proposed redirect target, and then broken out into a new article if it reaches sufficient independent notability. BD2412 T 02:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to a new section of their articles.Sir Magnus (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ミラP 21:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ミラP 21:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ミラP 21:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ミラP 21:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON - Let's address in section on their Wiki pages, and then a separate article can be created if there's sufficient notability established over time to warrant this subject having its own separate page. Until that time, there's no reason to even request a Merge since there's all of one sentence of material on the page... Shelbystripes (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. This can't be a full delete because the term "Megxit" is now appearing in the headline, and body, of SIGCOV pieces by the highest-grade RS (e.g. WP:RS/Ps), such as 'The Telegraph', 'NBC News', 'The Guardian' - I could list at least 10 more full SIGCOVs with the term; therefore the term "Megxit" will always be a valid Redirect to Prince Harry (and never a delete).
2. The UK and International high-quality RS on this term (and affair), is growing exponentially by the hour, however, Harry's main article says little of it. Therefore, redirecting what is one of the biggest trending stories globally (and therefore worthy of chronicling in some form), to an article that does not yet mention the term, is not yet appropriate.
3. There is a 50:50 chance that this article will always exist outside of the main Harry/Megan articles because there is so much going on, and commentary being written from the affair by the highest quality-RS, and its Megxit's long-term implications for the UK monarchy (and a related racial aspect), and would only clog-up Harry's BLP article.
Therefore, we should close this as a no consensus and let things settle for a month to see how big this affair gets. After then, it will either be a Redirect or Merge into Harry (and/or Megan), depending on how much material from this affair is in their main BLPs; OR, a useful standalone WP article. Britishfinance (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even Trump is commenting with: "Trump on 'Megxit': 'I don't think this should be happening to' the queen", via another WP:RS/P, USA Today. Britishfinance (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you hadn't said that, I remember ASAP Rocky... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point :) Note to self for future ref. Britishfinance (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Redirect for now, but would support a delete too. I don't know about anyone else, but I've been having sleepless nights worrying about how these multi-millionaires will be able to cope in the real world. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex#Public role for now. I've taken a few days to think about it, and while this clearly is a major news story, there's just not that much to say about it yet other than various reactions and speculation. An article can always be recreated in future (hopefully with a better, more encyclopaedic title, once the media settle on one) but I don't think there's enough content to justify a spin-off article at this time. Robofish (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (I would say that, since the term 'Megxit' clearly refers to Meghan, it should logically redirect to her article rather than Harry's.) Robofish (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've no strong feelings about whether this event is notable enough for a standlaone article, but if it were kept I think Resignation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would be a more encyclopaedic title. Ham II (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We have over 10 WP:RS/Ps with Megxit in the title discussing Megxit in the body; we also have Brexit as a standalone article. Britishfinance (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article Brexit was titled United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union for the first 10 months of its existence, and the first request to move it to 'Brexit' closed with no consensus, so it took some time for that term to be considered encyclopaedic. Looking quickly at the Guardian's website, the most prominent articles don't call this development 'Megxit', but a search for 'Megxit' does also produce several results. I'm convinced that 'Megxit' is still slang at the moment (as 'Brexit' was once considered to be), but while I think the way to determine the real WP:COMMONNAME would be to weigh the RSs which discuss this event but don't call it 'Megxit' against the ones which do, I've no inclination to do something so tedious which would almost immediately become dated. Ham II (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per the "background" section of the article, some RS are clarifying that they have not "resigned" from the royal family (for reasons explained), and thus "Resignation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" is not necessarily appropriate at this stage. Britishfinance (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And note that the creator and a major editor of this article is one of the most proficient FA/GA rated editors on WP. At the moment, when you google "Megxit", you get a Spanish-WP "Megxit" article (per above), with NPOV tags, and not what en-WP has to offer because one of the highest trending news stories globally ... is stuck at en-AfD? Britishfinance (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Britishfinance, Great point! That actually also effectively nullifies the "redirect" arguments, too, no, since there is, potentially, no clear redirect target (i.e., the case could be made for redirecting to Meghan, to Harry, or to Spanish Wikipedia). Doug Mehus T·C 18:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance Not disputing what you said about the Spanish Wikipedia widget as Google Personalized Search is likely at play here, but what I see when searching, from a logged in Google Canada web search, is no Wikipedia widget whatsoever. Using a StartPage, which is essentially an anonymous Google web search overlay, search, I also see nothing. Using DuckDuckGo, I see Megxit from English Wikipedia. Doug Mehus T·C 18:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, just seen that in Europe (my patch), Google has taken the Spanish-Megxit article off there the main search listings (probably given tagging). Parts of it read like a tabloid article in my view. Britishfinance (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with possible rename. Very real current event as agreed with others. TheKaphox T 21:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per my comments above, and now that Dr. Blofeld (one of the most experienced FA-GA rated editors in WP) and I have over 20 refs from WP:RS/Ps using "Megxit" in their title and body to describe this event it is never going to be a delete. In addition, the RS also show that it is not an "abdication" nor (at least currently) a "resignation". Other social media terms like "Sussexit" made much less appearance in WP:RS/P (almost none); however the term "step-back" gets some use (although at a much lower lever). Until we know how this highly notanle "current news event" develops (e.g. maybe they will end up fully and formally resigning), I think "Megxit" is the title for now. We can always revisit any case for a merge in a few weeks/months time. Britishfinance (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider a title change. A topic of lasting significance. It's certainly not common for senior members of the British royal family to "step back", and this is generating significant, ongoing coverage AusLondonder (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wait for the dust to settle, then consider whether a merger would be a good option. For all we know the two may well be planning further ventures resulting in continued impact/significance down the line. Or perhaps the whole thing may fizzle down, though that appears less likely. We don't know for sure yet, but keeping the content in a separate article for now aids readers compared to splitting and merging the content here to the two BLPs, which would be messy. feminist (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Feminist, Well said, I'm not opposed to a future merger or dual merge with the respective Harry and Meghan articles, which, on first glance, seem to be unduly flattering. There was no mention of Harry's youthful playboy escapades in Calgary and Las Vegas, for example, nor really any previous controversies. But, I don't see how either a "delete" or "redirect" are helpful here. Doug Mehus T·C 14:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a significant and current event however I agree with other users that a rename may be appropriate Davethorp (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This might not be quite as big of an event in the royal family as Edward VIII abdication crisis, but it is huge. Just about every news outlet has at least one story about it if not more[1]. The event will very likely have a lasting impact, and as well will likely be talked about for years, even decades to come. There's been a suggestion this might be merged "into Harry (and/or Megan)", which highlights a problem. This isn't just Harry stepping back from his duties; it's Megan too. So where do you merge it to? One? Both? I say neither. It's a major event in and of its own accord, and needs a stand alone article. As to the title, I find "Megxit" rather less than appealing, and even offensive potentially. But, on Google it tracks with 44 million+ hits [2]. Interestingly, Google calls it "Resignation of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" [3], and the Wikipedia link....goes to Megxit. That title would be a mouthful and is unlikely to become the title. I'm open to suggestions on an alternate title, but I think we have to go with what the public is calling it, regardless of our feelings of its problematic nature. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with much of the above and the issues of where to redirect/merge (this is really about both of them). The article had "Resignation of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" as an earlier bolded term in the lede (which google have probably picked up on), however, as several RS have pointed out, it is not (as yet) a "resignation". It was a fair nom at the outset, however, in the past few days it has become a huge story and every WP:RS/P, from every corner of the globe, is covering "Megxit". The Times, the holy grail of newspaper RS/P, has just run an article about whether it could be a "Hard Megxit" or a "Soft Megxit"? Britishfinance (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammersoft and Britishfinance, Hammersoft, I agree with what you said as well, and I, too, think it's appropriately named as "Megxit." Some Royal watchers and, indeed, the Royal family, may not like our naming convention for this article, but I think it checks all the boxes in terms of concision and what it is being commonly referred to. I do think a couple paragraphs on this is worthy of inclusion in the Harry & Meghan articles, potentially even The Queen as well, with "main article" section hatnotes to Megxit. To be clear, I am very much a supporter of the monarchy, the Commonwealth, and especially The Queen, whom I adore and for whom I have great respect and admiration; however, I have to set aside those feelings. Megxit is the perfect titling of the article; if, in the future, more, different controversies ensue and Megzilla becomes the new common name to refer to Meghan and the myriad future controversies, then we can re-consider renaming such a hypothetical future, multi-issue article.
    Britishfinance, I'm surprised to hear you say The Times is the "holy grail" of newspaper reliable sources. I'd have thought you'd have said The Daily Telegraph, as I've heard that's The Queen's preferred daily broadsheet newspaper. Though, I don't disagree with you—I like both papers, and I think The Independent is very good, too. Doug Mehus T·C 20:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dmehus, The Telegraph is an RS/P but is a right-leaning royalist slant (the ying/yang to The Guardian (another RS/P) left-leaning anti-royalist slant). The Times is the one in the centre (on all subjects) and the most balanced of them all, imho. If you had to pick one UK newspaper RS/P, I think it would be The Times? thank. Britishfinance (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Britishfinance, Ah, yeah, that makes sense, and thanks for confirming that The Telegraph does have more of a royalist/monarchist tint (with The Guardian being roughly opposite). I know The Daily Mail isn't as well regarded, but I do enjoy their "ThisIsMoney.co.uk" personal finance news source, which I find to be a great source of coverage on UK banks and building societies and their branch closures (personal fascination). Doug Mehus T·C 20:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename "Megxit" is silly. This'd be media's ploy to involve Meghan Markle as having some negative responsibility on all this happening. Set it as a redirect, perhaps, but the article name should be changed to something more objective that does not involve jargon. Tytrox (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tytrox, we have Brexit or Wexit/Wexit Canada. It's entirely neutral. Doug Mehus T·C 23:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmehus thanks for pointing that out. TBH I wasn't aware that those articles existed (have never bothered to look for them), but I otherwise stick to my opinion (on general terms) that using jargon as the article title shouldn't be practiced. Tytrox (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tytrox, Sorry, I wasn't meant to be patronizing, and hope no offence was taken. In hindsight, I need not have mentioned it; my point was that I do think Megxit is a perfectly neutral title. Often we tend to perceive things as being slanted in a way that is opposite to our own. Some people, viewing her as behaving in a diva-ish manner, for example, might think Megxit is unduly flattering to Meghan Markle (by its more subtle, neutral tone, and by naming the event after her). As I say, I don't hold that view and think that Megxit is neutral. Doug Mehus T·C 00:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmehus All good mate. I didn't view it that way, so no offence taken. I was just giving an observation that I genuinely didn't know those articles existed. The whole thing you point out about how people view her is a matter of subjectivity, whether it's in good or bad light. I just feel the jargon use in the title somewhat betrays the nature of Wikipedia. I'll also clarify that while I'm not entirely dismissing the notability of it, I just think we can surely come up with a more meaningful title. Tytrox (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename. Event is definitely notable, but I don't think "Megxit" is the WP:COMMONNAME (this is not like "Brexit"), and it's a "neologism" anyhow (it's nothing more than a tabloid creation, and we should not be following their lead). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IJBall, Interesting...I've got to read up on the difference between a "neologism" and a "portmanteau," which is how the article describes it. Can it be both a neologism and a portmanteau? Doug Mehus T·C 01:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's inaccurate to characterize the word "Megxit" as exclusively a tabloid-created word. Especially if the idea is to make it seem like an illegitimate phenomenon. It was the lowest of low-hanging fruit and people were saying it on Twitter pretty much immediately after the first announcement. (inb4 "Twitter isn't a Reliable Source." That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that "it was made up by tabloids specifically to direct this at Meghan Markle" is inaccurate and not a good argument against the article's name.) lethargilistic (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep with possible name change. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm here because I was looking on the homepage for this article and to my surprise, it wasn't there. I live in New Zealand, which is part of the Commonwealth, but as far away from Britain as you can get. The Australian bushfires are obviously a big thing in this part of the world and despite that being much closer (the sun is often obscured from the smoke, although we are some 2000 km away from the fires; still a lot closer than Europe), Megxit has been the lead item on the main news most evenings since this has happened. So yes, it would appear to be a most notable event, not just a wee bit notable. I don't really care what the article title is going to be and frankly, that should not be the topic of an AfD discussion in the first instance. It is something that can be sorted through the appropriate process. Schwede66 10:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is usually superb with current affairs, so much that I had expected to see Megxit already created and to see it on the main page too. The "Megxit" title does sound tabloidy but the fact even the most reputable publications are calling it Megxit now, I don't think we can ignore that. They're even making Megxit mugs now LOL. 12,000 views yesterday, interest in this has doubled.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofeld, Doubled on Wikipedia. Interest and use of the Megxit term has ballooned by an unknown factor, probably of astronomical size. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 15:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately their future ex-Royal activity will be under the Sussex Royal Foundation, which will resolve issues of redirection etc. Megxit has become such as massive global term now that it will likely remain the title of the article describing the event and the weeks afterwards (until the Foundation is going in April). Other more formal terms such as resignation etc. are incorrect (per the article). What any reader will search for, when researching this mad period, is Megxit. Britishfinance (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, Even then, I still think Megxit as a standalone article from Sussex Royal Foundation if and when Sussex Royal Foundation is deserving of an article. I don't think we should ever condense and merge Megxit to a mere section of a Sussex Royal Foundation article as to do so would be both undue and overly puffery, eh? Doug Mehus T·C 15:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to...well, that's another matter. The Harry article, I suppose, or a general article on the British royal family, it doesn't matter much to me. (No, not to Sussex Royal Foundation--the whole thing is bigger than just a business venture.) That this got 8000 views is not a surprise--it's a happening thing, and a valid reason to make a redirect. That we should have an article under that name is another matter. The article right now, of course, reads like a well-organized selection of celebrity trivia, with half the article dedicated to "reactions" and a chunk on the business aspect of it. Once you take out the NOTNEWS stuff, and once we are done with this in the news cycle, there's not much left, at least for now. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is, wrongly or rightly, one of the biggest news stories in the world (hence why this article is constructed from the highest grade RS, all of whom have full SIGCOV pieces on the story). It will always be an article. It also has "legs" to it that these RS have raised (and are in the article), around racism and the structure of the UK monarchy . However, all that aside, in a platform whose ratio of articles-to-active-editors/admins is rising relentlessly, having a well constructed article on "Megxit" is a great display to future editors of what WP can do (e.g. parse through all the junk-RS on this topic to capture the most important facts). UK royalty articles are collectively, probably the most viewed articles in Wikipedia by our readers. Unfortunately, because of this AfD, this article appears in few google searches on the topic (some !votes above have registered surprise that they could not find it easily). I think we are scoring an own-goal here. Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies, I agree with Britishfinance and others that this article is notable on its own, so I'm not sure how redirecting makes sense. We'd have to duplicate the content on each of the articles for Meghan and Harry and, even then, WP:BLP or other policies may constrain us in terms of how much detail we go into on it. The one thing I strongly agree with you on, though, is that Megxit is entirely separate of Sussex Royal Foundation as it's way bigger and broader than that foundation, which may be deserving of its own, separate, standalone article in the future. Doug Mehus T·C 17:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I disagree that it should stand on its own, so for me redirecting makes sense! BTW, don't be mistaken on the BLP: it applies everywhere (including in other namespaces), so whether something is in the article on the person or the article on a -gate or -exit does not matter. There is no difference in how much detail is licensed in one article or the other except by editorial common sense and MoS guidelines. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Drmies, Thanks for the clarification re: WP:BLP. Though, given the neutral tone of the article and that we have multiple articles on Donald Trump and various controversies, I don't think there is a WP:BLP violation for giving undue weight to this story, right? Doug Mehus T·C 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom, Britishfinance. Their points make the most sense for now. CaroleHenson (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out "nom".–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom, Britishfinance. --IndexAccount (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and oppose rename - I'm not sure why so many are invoking WP:TOOSOON on this, which isn't policy or guideline, it's only an essay, and if applied literally would mean we'd never add articles about current events. Much as I personally think the story is overblown nonsense and it shouldn't be a big deal, it's clear that this has enough substance and enough reliable source coverage to easily meet our standards for both notability and having a standalone article. It's a bigger deal than Covfefe. On the naming, although I wouldn't be opposed in principle to a descriptive title I think there's a big problem with defining what that is. For a while the article was titled "Resignation of..." which is inaccurate. They haven't resigned from the Royal family, they've just "stepped back" from some of their duties. As such, the current title which has gained lots of traction in lots of sources, describes the topic in a WP:CONCISE fashion and with enough frequency to justify as a WP:COMMONNAME. In short, leave exactly as is. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru, Here, here. And, well said. I had forgotten Covfefe has a standalone article and you're right, this is way bigger than that. There are potential implications for the British monarchy and, indeed, all Commonwealth countries. It may not be as big as Brexit, but it's arguably bigger than Wexit Canada/Wexit, which also has a standalone article. So, you've made me add to my own "keep" !vote above by both opposing a rename and a merger with a future potential Sussex Royal Foundation article as Drmies rightly points out this is much bigger, and broader, than their charitable foundation. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and oppose rename This is the most significant royal event since Wallis Simpson and King Edward VIII.Arbil44 (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete

-Loaded, non neutral title

-Wikipedia is not a gossip column

-WP:TOO SOON

-The existence of the Wikipedia article is likely to promote the use of the term thereby becoming a self fulfilling prophecy that the term is relevant. Check back in a year and see if anyone is still using it Slywriter (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is already a global trending term, and this article does not appear on google search because of the AfD, so it is not contributing to its trending. Rather than being able to read a well structured en-WP article on the topic using the highest grade RS, people have to wade through literally thousands of global RS on it, a lot of which is junk. Britishfinance (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a reader searches in google under "Megxit site:wikipedia.org" (i.e. show me what Wikipedia has on Megxit), you will get a Spanish Wikipedia article on Megxit, and a Hebrew Wikipedia article on Megxit; but nothing in English Wikipedia as we are still in the AfD quarantine. Britishfinance (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, Oh, interesting...Hebrew Wikipedia now has an article on Megxit? Interesting. There's got to be a Wikipedia policy, essay, or guideline, that recommends, where possible, English versions of foreign language Wikipedia articles, for accessibility purposes, too. Doug Mehus T·C 17:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Different Wikipedias have different notability standards, and we don't know if other Wikipedias' articles actually fit with their notability guidelines. That would be a very bad idea if it was implemented. BTW Dmehus, on accessibility please adhere to MOS:LISTGAP with your comments. J947 (c), at 20:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J947, Thank you for clarifying the different notability standards for different Wikipedias. As to MOS:LISTGAP, I was not aware of that policy, though I'm not sure which part you were referencing. I have seen many, many editors indent one further level with each subsequent nested reply. Some editors use an asterisk followed by colons, whilst others use all colons. As long as editors aren't inserting multiple bullet points with each indentation, I can see no real difference between the two styles. If referencing extra blank lines, I haven't been? That was Slywriter's post above, so my using reply-link likely ignored the extra blank line below his or her comment? Doug Mehus T·C 20:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed that you responded to '*' with '::' once (it only happened when you didn't use reply-link). J947 (c), at 21:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article explicitly says in the first sentence of the section titled Megxit#Naming, that the term was created by British tabloid, The Sun. The article also says that the term “Megxit”, per the highest grade RS, is also notable for its embedded implication that Meghan drove the decision. The highest grade RS also says “Megxit” is notable for its pejorative aspect, which is another aspect of the story (eg animosity of British tabloid media to Meghan, and/or aspects of racism). And, less than a week after the term was created, the RS have been reporting on the explosion in “Megxit” merchandising.
In addition, per both google search stats, and use by the highest grade RS (per the article), “Megxit” is by some distance, the WP:COMMONNAME, and the most likely search term a reader would use.
And of course, AfD is not for naming articles. Britishfinance (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, Megxit now has half has many pageviews as Google Search in the past 30 days, and it's not even been 30 days. Doug Mehus T·C 09:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even today, just 7 days after the announcement, the three highest grade newspaper RS in the US, all have SIGCOV pieces on "Megxit" (e.g. COMMONNAME), with the NYT exploring the meaning of the term in more detail and its links with the same voter split from Brexit (e.g. the term is itself becoming the topic).
New York Times (15 January 2020): ‘Megxit’ Is the New Brexit in a Britain Split by Age and Politics
Wall Street Journal (15 January 2020): ‘Megxit’ Causes Global Uproar. Canada Shrugs.
Washington Post (15 January 2020): How Megxit put Queen Elizabeth II in the role of crisis manager once again
I had my doubts originally, but Megxit has undoubtly become a standalone WP-notable topic now. Britishfinance (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Megxit&oldid=1073184217"