Lloyd Austin hospitalization controversy: At this moment I don't see any reason for this to have its own article, when a few lines in the main Lloyd Austin article should more than suffice.  KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait — Premature nomination.  Information about Austin's ongoing hospitalization is still regularly coming in.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The nomination is not premature; the creation of this article is.  KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What Kingoflettuce said.  Not sure why it's so hard for you to let content grow in the main article before making a new one.  Reywas92 Talk 05:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] : KEEP I agree.  209.6.153.165 ( talk ) 01:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to Lloyd Austin .  Crazy, moment by moment levels of detail about a hospitalization that may have broken 'procedural law'.  As the nominator says, this is WP:NOTNEWS .  Sionk ( talk ) 22:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - WP:NOTSCANDAL - Certainly not worthy of a stand-alone article.  A big uproar so both major parties could get some news coverage for their complaining.  There is Deputy Secretary of Defense to fill in during any secretary's absence.   The government has checks and balances to keep it going if someone is temporarily sidelined.  — Maile ( talk ) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed my Delete to Merge, based on the majority of the input here.  — Maile ( talk ) 23:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge is fine.  "Guy goes to hospital and doesn't tell people about it" isn't notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is likely to be just a few lines in Secretary Austin's personal life section in the end; right now it's yet another overheated story about a telephone game -like failure to communicate because it's Washington and political journalists refuse to just let someone heal from life-threatening surgery, nor not make a news cycle about it (and incredibly wrongly described; how can it be the secretary's fault when he's bedridden and his PAs don't communicate that well?).  Nate • ( chatter ) 01:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your last sentence is irrelevant to this discussion, but this is not a fair characterization of the issue; Austin had several instances in which he could have brought up his planned prostatectomy but failed to.  Austin is notoriously secretive.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP This is very important.  Every day since the hospitalization was announced, it has been mentioned on every news channel in the U.S. every single hour.  This is clearly important.  209.6.153.165 ( talk ) 01:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kingoflettuce KEEP which boxes?  I see a wonderful article.  209.6.153.165 ( talk ) 01:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Duplicate vote! struck.  Nate • ( chatter ) 02:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is clearly an important topic, but depending on the outcome if some people believe that it may not be independently notable then merging should be an option rather than deleting it.  Keivan.f Talk 06:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My thoughts exactly, but I don't see this meriting anything more than a merger.  KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I think anything here could be merged into the existing section on Austin's page; so far, it seems like a news cycle doing its thing.  Nothing wrong with that, but it can be better summarised for readers in a smaller, less intensely detailed section.  Gazamp ( talk ) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:NOTNEWS , WP:RECENTISM .  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 01:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy merge/delete Once again we see this user racing to create an article about a current event before it's needed.  Sure it's an important topic – one that can be (and is) covered at Lloyd Austin .  Countless cabinet secretaries have had major and minor scandals that hit the news cycle, but that does not mean they need separate duplicative articles.  Reywas92 Talk 05:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If I had "raced" to create the article, it would have been created days prior.  The breadth of reactions and inquiries suggested to me that this was not going to be a one-off event.  Keep your differences in opinion to differences in opinion.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP This is a major issue; note that anyone under Austin's command when he was a general could be court-martialed for dereliction of duty, i.e. being AWOL (absent without leave) for three days.  MERGE might be appropriate once time passes, as this is still a developing current event. -- FeralOink ( talk ) 19:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm shocked that the US Armed Forces do not, in your opinion, recognise medical leave even for what appears to have been a medical emergency! Shame on them! -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Necrothesp , Please do not use the discussion as a soapbox for the topic (see WP:SOAP ).  Best, @ Avishai11 Avishai11 ( talk ) 17:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good grief, it's called sarcasm!  A response to a clearly daft comment.  I really don't give a monkey's about what Lloyd Austin may or may not have done.  It's a proverbial storm in a teacup.  Which was my point.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 18:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  Hardly worth a full-scale article.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Lloyd Austin . This feels like WP:NOTNEWS and if this becomes a more significant issue, it will likely be under another title. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 16:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Definitely does not need it's own article, this could be a paragraph in the Lloyd Austin article, maybe a new section there at most.  Mighty Midas ( talk ) 21:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP very important as people may be court-martialed.  Avishai11 ( talk ) 22:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Extremely spurious rationale...  KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 13:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We are hearing new revelations each day about the situation, so I believe we should keep and wait.  Avishai11 ( talk ) 19:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Not notable on its own.  Intothat darkness 19:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a properly sourced summary to Lloyd Austin .  This is NOTNEWS as a stand alone article and an unneeded CFORK from the main article.  // Timothy :: talk 10:09, 19 January 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.

Discussion outcome: merge