Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Official portrait of General Mark A. Milley

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 redirect‎ to Mark Milley#Actions of the second Trump administration. as an ATD. Noting that the title of this article section has changed over the course of this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Official portrait of General Mark A. Milley

[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)

Coverage not WP:SUSTAINED, coverage is WP:ROUTINE, and exemplifies WP:TDS (Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article). Not independently notable and could serve as a footnote or two lines on any given Donald Trump article. Literally, the content is "the US government put up a portrait of a general, and then right after Trump took office, it was removed". WP:NOTNEWS. Barnt Toust 02:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE I agree. NOT NEWS TDS there has been sufficient discussion of the portrait's removal in the article on Gen. Mark Milley. A separate, standalone article is unwarranted and is only popular due to the current political atmosphere. Chiassons (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well-publicized artwork and political incident with significant media coverage and public interest. --Tataral (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So maybe your topic is relevant, but that doesn't mean it deserves its own separate article. It may well be best served as a short paragraph in an existing article – Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Barnt Toust 03:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Strong Delete per ROUTINE, NOTNEWS, TDS – the page creator needs a thorough lesson in these tenets. I mean this is just ridiculous 🙄 YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a trout, master Yoda? I'll invite the next editor who sees fit to, to deliver to Tataral—the page creator—a good WHACK. Barnt Toust 03:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plain old strong delete, then. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A poorly thought-out article creation. The removal of a portrait, as politically-overtoned as it may be, does not grant notability to the portrait. Mention this in "Second Presidency of Donald Trump" or whatever the article name about that is. Not worthy of a standalone. Zaathras (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Milley#Second Trump administration where this is already covered sufficiently. This article unnecessarily stretches two sentences' worth of content into five paragraphs. As a second choice, just delete per nom with a strong dose of WP:TDS. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per BT. 2600:2B00:9639:F100:89DA:72DA:5ADF:68C8 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect info to Mark Milley as per Metropolitan90... only notable for how mark milley is being treated during second trump admin. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Military, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's just a portrait. That's it. It's just a portrait... Norbillian (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom RamHez (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This can easily be covered in Milley's own article. Aŭstriano (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom— Preceding unsigned comment added by Golikom (talk • contribs) 2025-01-26T07:31:30 (UTC)
- Striking the first comment by the user who placed another one which was a bit more though-out below. Barnt Toust 16:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete a blatant WP:COATRACK to make sure that every single petty thing Trump does gets an article publicizing it. a sentence in Milley's article can handle the matter perfectly fine, not to mention actually contextualizing this wrt the animosity between the two. Mangoe (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. There is nothing noteworthy or controversial about the portrait itself. Its only "claim to fame" is Trump's petty vindictiveness for having it removed from the Pentagon hallway where the portraits of all former chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are displayed, including having the wall painted over to hide the holes where the painting was affixed. It's mentioned in Mark Milley#Second Trump administration and in Second presidency of Donald Trump#Other actions. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 20:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Milley#Second Trump administration as an alternative to deletion, where it is already discussed. It's a valid subtopic and search time, so outright deletion is not optimal nor warranted by policy. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Milley as per Metropolitan90 The picture does not need its own article. On Milley's page the photo already has the information that it needs. JER3L1337 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is well-written and cited with lots of reliable sources. It was also viewed 3 791 times since January 25, making it quite notable in my opinion. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above, and this piece of art is not notable in and of itself, outside of the press coverage surrounding its removal (which is sufficiently covered in the subject article). — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, covered adequately on Milley's page and yet more WP:TRUMPCRUFT Golikom (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not allowed to vote multiple times. Your comments don’t carry more weight just because you post multiple "delete votes". --Tataral (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Struck the first of this editor's votes for this current one. Barnt Toust 16:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, forgot I'd already commented, sorry. Golikom (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:RECENTISM, unlikely to have sustained coverage jolielover♥talk 11:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article has 2,000 to 3,000 daily readers, despite not being included in any of the templates, so readers don't really agree with the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. It's arguably the most famous work of art to ever be displayed in the Pentagon. --Tataral (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article has 2,000 to 3,000 daily readers. For all we know, that could be you artificially inflating the read count, either by yourself or by recruiting friends. That is why WP:POPULARPAGE exists, as counting internet statistics has precisely zero bearing on the notability of the subject matter. Zaathras (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Laughable. --Tataral (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm sorry that you find the fact that you argument is literally and specifically called out as a bad rationale to retain an article "laughable." Zaathras (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Tataral, your willingness to create blatant CRUFT makes me wonder if there should be sanctions on your ability to create articles. I mean it, stop creating these news-item works. Barnt Toust 18:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the view statistics for this article compared to the main article about Mark Milley: view statistics. You will find that the article about Mark Milley gets more than 4 times as many views as the article about his portrait every day, and sometimes more than 27 times as many views (and the portrait article has only once been over 2,000 views in a day). That's because this article is basically about an aspect of Milley's relationship with Donald Trump -- not primarily an article about the artwork depicting Milley. Note also that this is the only article in Wikipedia whose title begins with "Official portrait of ...". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eelipe (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Milley#Second Trump administration as an alternative to deletion. It is a valid search term for our worldwide audience, our customers, our readers. As Patar knight said outright deletion not optimal/nor warranted by policy. What we regular editors & old-timers around here might think is best & according to Hoyle is not always the most intuitive for our customer-base. Agree with Patar knight, Metropolitan90, JER3L1337, & Bluethricecreamman. - Shearonink (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2025 (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.