This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
To begin, I want to acknowledge that contentious articles are not in my typical domain. However, as someone interested in the case who also does background work with Wikipedia (primarily through New Page Patrol, this article (as well as the one for Lauren Chen) has been on my radar. As such, please let me know if there is a common procedure for handling situations like this one.
To my knowledge, there is not a page dedicated to the DOJ investigation at the moment. Rather, the articles dedicated to Tenet Media and Lauren Chen discuss the investigation. Based on current sourcing (as well as several searches for sources published prior to September 1), Tenet Media's notability prior to the investigation is questionable--at least according to Wikipedia's standards. As such, I'm curious to hear people's perspectives on the following options for ongoing coverage of this investigation (and/or to hear additional options):
Create an article focused on the investigation (using much of the language and sourcing from this article) and redirect this article there.
Create an article focused on the investigation (using much of the language and sourcing from this article), pare down this article to primarily focus on Tenet Media, and add the investigation in the "See also" section.
What I mean is that we don't need a separate (third) article for the Tenet interference case. We can stick with the Tenet article and the one on general interference. Cortador (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Once a topic is notable enough for an article, regardless of the reason, the subject receives more coverage, enabling us to fill out many more details unrelated to the original notability reasons. This article will just have a large section dealing with the controversy, and that's okay. Since Tenet has shut down, there may not be much more coming down the pike. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
