Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of the Department of Government Efficiency

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus‎. Much of the strife in this AfD revolved around the use of the word "network" in the title. To remind you, notability is independent of the article's title. Any !vote that implies Keep if the page were moved to a better title is a !vote to retain the page.
More serious are the claims that the page suffers from WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. A goodly portion of the 10,000 words(!) in this discussion was spent debating this question, with no consensus in the end. Some participants based their Merge !vote effectively on WP:NOPAGE, but that was rebutted with the issue of WP:SIZESPLIT, which triggered the original spinout.
Two speedy keep !votes were nullified due to a misunderstanding by the participant; kudos to Czarking0 for the clarification. Some Keep arguments received little weight. A response such as Show it to a claim that the article is unsourced carries zero weight. The onus of sourcing is on those claiming notability, not the other way around. This left a majority for the Merge side, but not to the point of even a rough consensus.
And while titles are outside the purview of AfD, I am taking the liberty of moving the page back to its former title, Workforce of the Department of Government Efficiency. I see a clear consensus that as a minimum, this is an improvement over the current title. And lastly, a big thank-you to Super Goku V for cleaning up and formatting this big mess, making my life much easier, not to mention helping with the discussion itself. Owen× ☎ 15:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Network of the Department of Government Efficiency

edit

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

Network of the Department of Government Efficiency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Deamonpen (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate this page for Delete. This article is based on the weak basis, that is journalists' articles about political and business connections of people who are related to the Department of Government Efficiency. It lists no serious scholarly source that does research or even just identifies the "network" as such (giving it such a name), or explain its structure, its origin, its purposes, its evolvement, its problems.

Basically, low-level employee X at the DOGE once worked for a Thiel company (facts often pointed out by the journalists) should be no reason to have such an article. Similarly, "one of Hillary Clinton's closest advisors has just married the Soros heir" should not be basis for a similar article aimed at Clinton.

The lede also focuses on the controversies surrounding Musk's position in the DOGE and some other problems that have nothing to do with its title.

This reeks of WP:OR.

I think an article named "Controversies surrounding the Department of Government Efficiency" or "Criticism of the Department of Government Efficiency" should exist, because there are many such controversies and it is relevant. But a total writing is also necessary. Deamonpen (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is mostly based on work by investigative journalists at ProPublica, Wired, the NYT, WaPo, etc. Why there's no "structure" behind DOGE is already explained in the page. There's a main page that explains its origin, its "purposes", and its "evolvement". There's another for its problems. So the main complaint doesn't even apply to that page.
The demand that the network be identified in "serious scholarly source" is as absurd as to request that the PayPal Mafia be traced back in peer review. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repost of my comment on the Talk page of the relevant page:
Just because there are sources, it does not warrant an article. It is a matter of WP:N.
Secondly, if there are sources about subject A (there are DOGE employees who worked for Andreessen) and subject B (Musk's position is poorly defined by the government), these two should NOT be combined into the synthesis "This is the network of the DOGE, led by Musk, Andreessen, Thiel". That is WP:OR. So what is the purpose and the structure of such a "network"? Who owns it? Why "network" (implying everything is connected into a singular entity) and not "networks"? And even among the journalists, who defines it as "network of the Department of the Government Efficiency"? What degree of popularity does this name have in such sources to guarantee a Wikipedia article with such a name?
This is another example of the original research: User:Selbsportrait decides, without any source at all, that there is an order of importance when it comes the people they apparently deem as important actors in this network:
Edit 1 by me
Edit 2 by Selbsportrait
Edit 3 by me
Edit 4 by Selbsportrait
Your title, your table, your "order of importance" all reflect a bias that has no credible source as basis.
Additions:
Who decides that Trump is more important than Musk, Musk is more important than Thiel, Thiel is more important than FedSoc? The term "network" itself implies the importance of unofficial power. And when it comes to unofficial power, there are articles out there that implies that Thiel controls it all.
Godfather of DOGE: Peter Thiel Laid the Groundwork for Musk's Cuts by Adam Rogers:
Peter Thiel has won.
Behind the chaotic first month of the Trump administration lies a sweeping political vision laid out by Thiel, the billionaire tech investor, cofounder of PayPal, and destroyer of Gawker. Sure, Project 2025 drafted the blueprint for Donald Trump's war on government. Yes, Elon Musk is targeting federal workers with the same chopping-block zeal he brought to Twitter. But Thielism predates all that.
Wes Streeting mixes with tech billionaires at Bilderberg summit by declassifieduk
Alongside Palantir, another of Thiel’s defence start-ups was represented this year: Brian Schimpf, co-founder & CEO of AI defence company Anduril Industries, which focuses on drones and has recently won contracts from the UK military worth tens of millions of pounds.
Some have said that Bilderberg is where politicians go to get their orders, but the truth may be more subtle than this. For politicians, however successful, to be invited to Bilderberg a new level of power opens up to them.
A transatlantic, supra-national strata of power. A heady powerful space where AI billionaires are the new rulers of the world, working together across governments alongside defence and intelligence chiefs.
Recent ZDF documentary identifying Thiel as the man at the center of power
Link to the documentary
Such things should never be arbitrarily defined as "a matter of convenience". Deamonpen (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this...serious scholarship? Selbsportrait (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See? That is the matter with your whole article. Journalists often just touch on an aspect of the matter, and their views often vary. My view is that to write a "network" article, you need to have comprehensive sources and master those sources:
-Who gives it the name that you give?
-Present the structure of the network: author no.1 lists actors A, B, C as members, defines their roles (leader, puppet, puppetmaster), their goals; author no.2's opinions on the same problems...etc
-Present the evolution of the network: why and how does it evolve
-Present its significance: Prove that the network in question is somehow more notable than Hillary Clinton's or George Soros's "networks", to guarantee such an article. How it might influence the US in the long term etc.
Importantly, it should be proved that the "network" aspect is important. It's widely though that certain people in Silicon Valley today hold outsized political power, but that it comes from "the network" is a totally different matter. There is a scholarly perspective that emphasizes the technological aspect, for example Prof. Giuliano da Empoli, who argues that today things change because the tech matures.
Il faisait déjà partie du comité de sélection des nouveaux membres de l’administration, et il avait placé assez rapidement quelques personnes de son entourage — mais beaucoup moins que ce qu’il aurait espéré. Une rencontre avait été mise en scène avant l’investiture officielle de Trump, sous l’égide de Peter Thiel, au cours de laquelle il avait rencontré un certain nombre de patrons de la Silicon Valley. Mais cela n’était pas allé beaucoup plus loin.
Aujourd’hui, nous assistons je crois à quelque chose de beaucoup plus profond — et c’est la chose essentielle à comprendre : par un phénomène étrange — que Kissinger avait déjà pressenti — l’avènement de Trump coïncide avec l’arrivée à maturité politique de la tech.
source
Scholars Gary Marcus and Marietje Schaake respectively write books on "the AI coup" (Foreign Policy)
Let's think about it, in Trump's first term, the "network" or whatever existed as well, then why is the second term different? Claus Kleber (ZDF documentary) says that only a small part of Silicon Valley plays that powerful role, and that Thiel and Andreessen (both have no official positions) are the most powerful Silicon Valley billionaires. The declassifieduk article implies something similar - AI billionaires rule the world.
In specific cases, we have the same comments, and not just limited to the affairs of the government or the US.
They would like to use a different company for surveillance in Germany/Europe, but no European alternative to Palantir exists
JPMorgan, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley might not like AI destroy their business model, but no alternative to Palantir exists
In short: Combining ProPublica's article on how the DOGE is not democratic with Bloomberg's article on Thiel's protégés in the government, creating a table that combines them all, giving it a name... should not be the way one writes a Wikipedia article. Deamonpen (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That you can find bad sources implies nothing about the sources I found.
You're misconstruing WP:SYNTH.
Your claim that "the "network" or whatever existed as well" is false.
ProPublica's article has nothing to do with how DOGE is not democratic.
Your editorial on billionaires is irrelevant.
It's not "the" DOGE. It's DOGE. Selbsportrait (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Who decides that Trump is more important than Musk"
The topic itself decides, so to speak. Consider:
- DOGE is Trump's initiative.
- Musk is out of DOGE.
Which ties should be more important, Trump's or Musk's?
Suppose we decide to reorder the ties alphabetically, which is another "convenient" way to sort things out. That would also introduce a bias, an alphabetic bias. The same argument would then apply: unless we have "serious scholarship", it'd be original research, at least according to our querent's logic. So strong an argument that it would forbid almost every kind of editorial decisions.
And let it be noted that the *only* reason this matters is when readers reorders the table according to ties! Selbsportrait (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is YOUR decision then. I would argue that the one who gives the DOGE its overall mission, who has the most power on the actors involved... is the most important one. Some articles argue that this is Thiel. Anyway, "the topic itself decides" is WP:OR. Deamonpen (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Caps lock don't replace reasoning. Editors still make editorial decisions to structure information, determine relevance, scope, support, etc.
Anyway, you still haven't provided any valid argument. Selbsportrait (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided my arguments, let other editors decide whether they are valid.
Caps lock is a way to highlight a part of the sentence. It is not an argument.
But your arguments "the sky is blue", "for convenience" are surely not acceptable in a Wikipedia context. Deamonpen (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The sky is blue" is actually WP:BLUE, and you quoted the same argument twice.
You can reorder all the ties alphabetically for all I care. It won't make much of a difference for most entries. Selbsportrait (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 6. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 04:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. This is a massive, comprehensive, and well-documented amount of material on an unnotable topic. The key point here is that the article is based on journalists' articles about political and business connections of people who are related to the Department of Government Efficiency. The subject here reminds me of some articles at AfD some time ago on "The effect of weather on [X]" — the effect of weather on political campaigns is well documented, but that obviously does not mean that the weather itself merits an article. Likewise, the "Network of the DOGE" is well documented, but that does not mean that the network is inherently notable. Like nom pointed out, the article lists no serious scholarly source that does research or even just identifies the "network" as such (giving it such a name), or explain its structure, its origin, its purposes, its evolvement, its problems. The best solution here would probably be to merge this content back to Department of Government Efficiency.  GuardianH  06:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This page comes from the DOGE main page, and a cursory look on that page should be enough to see that an independent page is needed.
    Here is a sample of the kind of work on which this page rests:
    • Korosec, Kirsten; Whittaker, Zack; Rollet, Charles; O'Kane, Sean; Franceschi-Bicchierai, Lorenzo (2025-02-18). "Donald Trump picks Elon Musk for US government cost-cutting role". Techcrunch. Archived from the original on 2025-02-18. Retrieved 2025-02-18.
    • "Who Is in DOGE? Tracking Its Staffers and Allies in the Federal Government". The New York Times. 2025-02-28. Archived from the original on February 28, 2025. Retrieved 2025-03-02.
    • Elliott, Vittoria. "We Mapped DOGE's Silicon Valley and Corporate Connections". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2025-03-30.
    • Rollet, Charles; Bellan, Rebecca; Davis, Dominic-Madori; Bort, Julie; O'Kane, Sean (2025-03-26). "19 founders and VCs working with Elon Musk's DOGE". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2025-04-03.
    • Pearson, William Turton,Christopher Bing,Avi Asher-Schapiro,Al Shaw,Jake (2025-06-10). "The DOGE 100: Musk Is Out, but More Than 100 of His Followers Remain to Implement Trump's Blueprint". ProPublica. Retrieved 2025-06-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    This should suffice to establish notability.
    In the weather analogy, the DOGE network would be more like a station network; while weather reports would rather be like the output of DOGE's daily social account. Selbsportrait (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To me the Wired and NYT pieces provide a level of notability that justifies having an article on this. The bigger question I think it should it be merged into the main article. That is a hard question that I don't really have a strong opinion on. Czarking0 (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was split from the main article on size grounds so merging back doesn't seem like a viable option. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer Selbsportrait is top editor to this article Czarking0 (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep (procedural) I do not think this is a good faith nomination but a retaliation by the nom against Selbsportrait for what I think is their reasonable response on the talk page. The nom does not have evidence of WP:BEFORE and did not IMO sufficiently engage at the talk page before coming here. Regardless, I think the merge question is somewhat interesting but should be done in good faith at the talk page in accordance with merge prop guidelines. Update to closer: Do not count this as a keep vote since we can see it was not speedy kept.
Czarking0 (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion from the beginning is that the article is filled with WP:OR. I reject your accusation. Selbsportrait reversed my edit for the second time with a reason like "sky is blue" (to explain how there is an inherent order of importance among Trump, Musk, Thiel, FedSoc etc, that Selbsportrait's self-created table shows). I don't know why this is called "good faith" in a editor.Deamonpen (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and I would like to apologize for saying this was not in good faith. That really was my thought at the time but I think I need more WP:AGF. I recognize it is frustrating to be accused like that. I still believe in the rest of my comment but that portion was out of line. Czarking0 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also can you find another more convenient spot for your reply in this section? Deamonpen (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the article is filled with WP:OR"
That opinion has not been supported.
So far we have a dispute over how information in a specific column should be ordered. It only applies to DOGE members who have more than one well-supported tie. And the ties to the first guy, Marc Andreessen, have been ordered alphabetically.
In fact, looking at the first 50 entries, there are less than five such cases, and they still are ordered alphabetically.
Therefore it shouldn't be hard to get back to alphabetical order, this how the information was presented at first. No, make that second: first might have been chronological, but was too hard to maintain. Selbsportrait (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NO sources use this term, hence the need for AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a reason for AfD enumerated in policy and guideline... It doesn't matter what you call the topic. It also doesn't appear to be true, a number of sources use the word "network" when talking about this topic even if the title "Network of the Department of Government Efficiency" is a bit verbose as in-text it would just be "DOGE." In our context "DOGE network" doesn't really work because of ambiguity with the network on which the cryptocurrency DOGE operates on. Other name suggestions are welcome, but not really the point of AfD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, SYNTH and OR. Your article isn't supported by sources and we can't publish original research. We can't pick and choose from sources to build a narrative that isn't there. Unless you sue Wiki and WMF removes it, no questions asked. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Your article isn't supported by sources"
Show it.
But not here, as neither are criteria to delete a page. Selbsportrait (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What SYNTH and OR? What we have is clearly supported by the given sources, if you want more just scroll down this thread, and this isn't my article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Department of Government Efficiency for now. This appears to be a split from the "Workforce" section of that article that existed at the time. Certainly there will be a good case for looking at splitting such a long article (or reducing its length at least), but the "Network of the Department of Government Efficiency" isn't a thing outside of Wikipedia, as far as I can see. Sionk (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists of people are not exactly things. Major sources use different descriptions for that specific network, none of them encyclopedic. To use an example I forgot earlier:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2025/doge-employees-list-staff-elon-musk/
    WaPo calls it "The DOGE employees and allies". Calling that thing a list or a workforce or simply a list does not make the collective entity covered by many major sources disappear.
    Lots of lists in the Wiki can't easily be searched by the names they've been given by editors. Selbsportrait (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Employees and allies are still a bit different from "network". By this logic, all Democrats/Republicans are a "network", because they must be allies in one way or another. Many of your assignment of relationships in your table just do not make sense at all. Someone appearing on Trump's "transition team" or being an official in his first administration is evidence of them being a part of Trump's/DOGE's "network"? How?
    Try googling/searching for Kratsios + "protégé", and no source ever suggests that he is Trump's protégé.
    These are the first results that appear
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    So if this discussion ends with a "merge" decision and any part of this article is reused, I suggest attention should be paid to multiple instances of WP:OR like this.
    The cases editors give name that cannot be easily searched for, especially in a contemporary-social context like this (and not a little-known plant that was discovered one month ago and only some botanists are interested in), should all be checked for WP:OR. Deamonpen (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Employees and allies are still a bit different from "network""
    Not really, as should be obvious to anyone who paid any attention to the sources provided so far in this thread. To paraphrase does not amount to original research, and since no perfect synonyms exist your argument reduces to the notion that only plagiarism should belong to the Wiki. In any event, this grievance has little to do for a request for deletion. That title has been already discussed and voted. If you want another one, ask.
    Besides, you got your logic backwards. People are in the network because they're related to DOGE; they play a role in it. Someone does not belong to the network just because they have a tie with Musk or Trump, for Aristotle's sake!
    To take the first example in the list, we have evidence that Justin Aimonetti is part of DOGE: he is connected to CFPB, GSA, and the EOP. We also have evidence that he was part of the first Trump administration. There is no inference being proposed beyond that information. So WP:SYNTH doesn't even apply.
    So once again you come in hot empty handed. If you don't understand that last sentence, perhaps there's a language issue. Ça pourrait se régler facilement. Selbsportrait (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not attack anyone because you disagree with them again, Selbsportrait; that is uncalled for and I ask you strike that attack. We never level an attack on someone for their language proficiency. Nathannah • 📮 16:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you perceive as an attack based on language proficiency is a fig leaf. The concept of network is as objective and justified as can be. If it takes French to carry my point across, I'm willing to try.
    In return, I suggest that you reread WP:GNG and WP:CSC. Also, please beware that blanket assertions such as "there's absolutely no focus to this article" can easily be constructed as an attack. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Just for starters, searching for this generates essentially no legitimate hits, indicating that this is something someone dreamed up one day. And it reads as a kind of expose of DOGE and its participants' ties to other people. That may be a legitimate topic for a policy rag or other such political news medium, but we aren't here to publish such a work. I don't see the merge because I don't think we should be hiding such research inside other articles. Mangoe (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are websites you can host this esoteric information about a poorly-organized 'department' in what is so far, name only. There's absolutely no focus to this article and it just reads of a list of non-notable employees doing non-notable things. Nathannah • 📮 15:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the Department of Government Efficiency exists in name only doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The Network of DOGE isn't a thing, it's just DOGE employees. I don't find a source that uses this term. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is SYNTH, reading articles and cherry picking what we like to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we abstract away the appeal to motivation, reading articles and picking information to build an article is commonly called editing.
    To presume otherwise would assume that editors are mindless machines who never choose anything: page titles, section names, wording, citations, emphasis, etc.
    You are free to add any information you think is missing from the page. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That would require a rewrite, a new title, and that article already exists. I'm not seeing the need for this, it largely duplicates what we have, spun in a different direction that isn't supported by the sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have sigcov of this group as a class... On the name employees is too narrow because as the sources note many of the connections are more complicated than that and the sources include people who are not strictly DOGE employees. Network is the same as employees and allies however, that is the same topic and having an issue with an article's name is not a legitimate reason to delete. A note for those arguing against a merge... This page was originally a "Split of the "Workforce" section of the article "Department of Government Efficiency". Just copied its content in this edit, will need to be refined in the following edits." so you don't really have an argument, or at least if you do it isn't one of the ones already made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My point stands. I never said I only had a problem with the name. Employees and allies are not the same as network. Network as per Merriam Webster "as in system
    something made up of many interdependent or related parts". That was why I asked why network, and not networks. Who is to say all of these employees and allies collaborate for the same purpose? Every organization has members or employees and these people have allies. But person A and person B are employees, A has allies, B has allies, this do not mean A's allies and B's allies are the same network. Deamonpen (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This entire comment is only about the name... So what other point stands? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your entire comment is miscontruing my position. Deamonpen (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What point stands? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I question the whole rationale and basis of the article:
    "Name" is just one of my points. I find it very annoying that I have to resort to requoting myself like this, so I likely won't reply to you anymore after this:
    See? That is the matter with your whole article. Journalists often just touch on an aspect of the matter, and their views often vary. My view is that to write a "network" article, you need to have comprehensive sources and master those sources:
    -Who gives it the name that you give?
    -Present the structure of the network: author no.1 lists actors A, B, C as members, defines their roles (leader, puppet, puppetmaster), their goals; author no.2's opinions on the same problems...etc
    -Present the evolution of the network: why and how does it evolve
    -Present its significance: Prove that the network in question is somehow more notable than Hillary Clinton's or George Soros's "networks", to guarantee such an article. How it might influence the US in the long term etc.
    Importantly, it should be proved that the "network" aspect is important. It's widely though that certain people in Silicon Valley today hold outsized political power, but that it comes from "the network" is a totally different matter. There is a scholarly perspective that emphasizes the technological aspect, for example Prof. Giuliano da Empoli, who argues that today things change because the tech matures.
    Also, regarding names, it is one thing if there are different names for an entity that is widely recognized as real and clearly defined. Adult female humans = women. That is one thing. To arbitrarily decide that an organization having "employees and allies" equals that organization having an unified "network", is a totally different thing. It is a very weak claim for a Wikipedia article. Deamonpen (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have comprehensive sources, structure has nothing to do with notability, the evolution of the network has nothing to do with notability, its signficance is presented through coverage... It doesn't need to be more or less notable than anything else see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we don't need to prove anything... That isn't how notability works and you seem again to be struck on the word network. Your arguments need to be based in wikipedia policy and guideline, instead you seem to be telling us what you think. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge back to DOGE - this seems like a mish-mash of WP:OR of a bunch of articles. The main focus of reliable secondary sourcing is DOGE. Notability is not inherited simply by being related to DOGE, and I am having trouble finding anything in the sources that talks about the support system of DOGE in any in-depth way that is suggestive of notability. this belongs as part of the DOGE article and much more scaled back. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    list of members seems particularly egregious. see WP:NOTDB, but most of the individuals listed are not notable by themselves. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "DOGE Kids" at least has significant coverage under that name in an in-depth way that is suggestive of notability[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of general coverage this seems to check all the boxes... [9] and like most it presents the lack of clarity in who is directly employed by DOGE vs just part of the network around DOGE/Musk as a key part of the issue. Many sources also frame it as the network of Elon Musk in the context of DOGE or DOGE as an extension of Elon Musk's network[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The less encyclopedic commonly used term appears to be "Muskrats/Musk-rats" [21][22][23][24][25] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with revision The subject of the article meets WP:GNG. That said, the article needs revision. For example, the first sentence of the lead explains what the network is, but then the remainder of the first paragraph of the lead says nothing about the network and instead focuses on who the "administrator" is (de jure, de facto power, de facto daily operations). The network as a network isn't actually discussed so much in the body. It's also unclear what the rule is for saying that someone does/doesn't belong in the table (e.g., why is Emily Bryant included?), and many people may not meet the conditions of WP:LISTPEOPLE. My sense is that the sigcov for the topic exists largely because the membership was so opaque (so RSs were trying to determine who was working with DOGE) and because there is no public organizational structure (so RSs were attempting to classify people into leadership, etc.)., which is an odd reason for notability. Perhaps these factors contribute to the reasoning of those proposing that the article be deleted. As for those who are arguing for deletion because they object to the title, the appropriate response to that is a WP:MOVE discussion, not deletion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "why is Emily Bryant included"
    Fair question. The simplest answer is that she's mentioned in trackers, for instance:
    https://projects.propublica.org/elon-musk-doge-tracker/
    She's also mentioned in stories such as this one:
    https://www.wired.com/story/edward-coristine-big-balls-assaulted-alleged-carjacking/
    These sources proves beyond any doubt that there's nothing original in adding her as a DOGE member. Perhaps we should also clarify a few other things:
    (1) The table is meant to be as exhaustive as possible. This parries the accusation that the entries were cherry picked.
    (2) For some reason the Wiki frowns at didacticism, cf. MOS:INSTRUCT. This poses a problem with information such as the sentence that started this merry-go-round. In fact anything that looks like one is describing various elements of a page, like legends do. Wikipedia might be the only encyclopedia in the history of mankind that tries to get away with as little meta-discursive elements as possible. Them's the rules anyway.
    (The second point makes the first hard to make explicit. It shouldn't be required, as lists are meant to be exhaustive unless stated otherwise. I tried a minimum of description, and got burned for it.)
    (3) The citations in the table lacks proper scope. The editor who introduced the table added them at the end of each row, in the last column. At the time this was a good compromise: it made cells easier to read, and citations were centralized. Which brings us to:
    (4) We seem to discount the fact that to build this kind of table works in stages. In the beginning, various editors add information willy-nilly. Then an editorial direction emerges. Not because there's some "bias" at play, simply because editors work with what they got. Seen that way, no synthesis accusation holds.
    Since what we got are claims such as "The DOGE world, as it stands, seems to break down into roughly three categories: former Trump officials, conservative lawyers, and imports from the Silicon Valley area (funders, founders, technologists, or people connected to them)", pace Wired's mapping, that's where that table goes. Our structure is already well supported by our sources, without going beyond it. It can be improved, but it makes more sense than the mini-resumes we had at first.
    The main difficulty is that creating tables takes time. Another is that the administration created a fog of war; this is not a judgment, but an empirical fact. Lastly, there's no established format for network analysis. That last problem is my main area of interest.
    All in all, there's some method behind the work, warts and all. To dismiss it with "it reeks of OR, rewrite everything" and whatnot is seldom warranted for any kind of page other than stubs. And even then, such request does nothing to help improve the entries, as it carries nothing remotely actionable.
    By contrast, "why is Emily Bryant included" is perfectly intelligible, and somewhat easy to answer. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My points stand: it's unclear what the rule is for saying that someone does/doesn't belong in the table, and many people may not meet the conditions of WP:LISTPEOPLE. Is there some consensus among editors that the intent is to make it as exhaustive as possible? If so, it's odd that Ramaswamy isn't listed, but exhaustiveness would explain the likely conflict with WP:LISTPEOPLE. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ramaswamy isn't listed because he's not in one of the trackers. Which makes sense as he disappeared months before the creation of DOGE. Somebody still added him to the DOGE template, perhaps because he is mentioned in the Background section.
    As for consensus, nobody really disputed anything so far. AFAICS, editors simply added the names as that appeared in the trackers and in the news.
    If everybody who contributed to this discussion helped improve that page or contributed to its talk page, where this discussion should be taking place, we might not be here. Selbsportrait (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— "Reason" is not a reason for deletion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ElijahPepe: Someone accidently commented out of order and pushed the reasoning down the page. I have fixed this per TPO. Feel free to re-review. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Suggestion to closing admin -- if this ends up anything but Keep, recommend simply instead of hitting delete, userfy the whole thing to @Selbsportrait: and then simply use the already heavily cited table, turn it all into red links for anyone without an article. Then Selbsportrait can simply use the already formatted setup as an incubator to spawn off a great number of articles, and track sources. Then, maybe this would be better as a thorough and rigorous Template to be shared across these DOGE peoples and related articles. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This deletion page is a total mess and it is very hard to understand where people stand and what exactly the deletion rationale is. However, I am struggling to see how this page is notable. It appears to be mostly original research. What exactly is the point of the list of people? Esolo5002 (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well-intentioned but misguided attempt at educating the public on the evil network of billionaires, as far as I understand. Deamonpen (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no deletion rationale to speak of, and the reasons provided are unsound at best.
    Search for "Horse Eye's Back" on this page for a refutation of the ideas that it fails notability or that it rests on original research. Selbsportrait (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really hard to argue against what @Horse Eye's Back wrote. That's why I !voted Keep, and was (being honest) lightly leaning merge back or userfy at first. But the Horse is right. Keep. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You already highlight your "Keep" (by writing it in Bold once). I think you should not do it a second time. Deamonpen (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not formatted correctly, but there is a deletion rationale down the page. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone replied out of order and there is some messed up indenting. Will attempt a fix. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have attempted to fix this. Hopefully it helps. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For most of the past three days, this discussion was not in chronological order and the proposer's rational was unintentionally separated from their nomination. I have made a number of adjustments to try to resolve this and the issue mentioned above where this discussion was a mess. To the closer, that is why there are comments above mentioning that there was no rational listed other than "Reason" and that this discussion is a mess. To Czarking0, Deamonpen, Horse Eye's Back, Oaktree b, and Selbsportrait: I have had to move your comments from where they were to fix Deamonpen's initial comment as things got out of order. Additionally for Czarking0, Deamonpen, and Selbsportrait, I have had to adjust the indentation of your comments. I apologize for the trouble. I have made these changes per WP:TPO, primarily for ACCESSIBILITY reasons. Per TPO, Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If any of you have an objection to my TPO edits, then feel free to revert any or all of my changes. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have realized that I forgot to apply MOS:BADINDENT and messed up with MOS:INDENTMIX. At this point, I will just request those who I pinged to check their comments for any indent issues and to request that they fix them. WP:TPFIXFORMAT indicates that I could probably do so, but I don't want to push it with regards to the changes I have already made. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To the others that are moving comment around, that is disruptive editing. That can lead to sanctions, up to and including a block. Please don't alter the order of things.Super Goku, thank you for restoring the order. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering why this page was feeling rather disjointed... — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate it thanks Czarking0 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this article by splitting its content from the article Department of Government Efficiency. The reason is that the article on DOGE was becoming too long, and the content of the list is mostly interesting to a relatively niche audience (most people are not interested in the names of DOGE employees and connections). Merging back its content (particularly the table) to the article on DOGE would create too much bloat. Initially, the name was "Workforce of the Department of Government Efficiency", which is clearly notable, there are a lot of articles on this topic. The name was then broadened to "Network of the Department of Government Efficiency", because reliable sources also often cover people associated with DOGE that are not employees. What is important is that the sources used in the article are related to DOGE, and if the article makes claims based solely on primary sources unrelated to DOGE, these can be removed as original research. Alenoach (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe at a very minimum the name should be changed back to "Workforce of the Department of Government Efficiency". There's clearly no such thing that is widely (or at all) recognised as the "Network of...". Sionk (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely a discussion we can have, but it doesn't really carry any weight in a deletion discussion which is about the underlying topic by all names that appear in WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support returning to the original title AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the original title is indeed a possibility. Reliable sources use the term "workforce" much more often. Although I'm surprised that the notability of the topic is questioned either way, as it has more than 200 references, most of which are on the topic of DOGE members and come from major news sources. Alenoach (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm surprised that the notability of the topic is questioned either way
I will be bold and say there is no good faith to argue against notability itself, here. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will be bold and say it is bad faith to assume that different people to see Wikipedia articles from your perspective. The important matter is the whole topic is ill-defined from the start. What is it after all? The workforce and the involved people's personal relationships, or "the network"? DOGE is notable, Musk is notable, and we have articles about them. If you want to write about something else, please present concrete, well-defined materials. That is why scholarly, comprehensive sources are so important. I can point to hundreds of media articles out there discussing Kim Kardashian's buttocks. Do you think that should be a Wikipedia article? Deamonpen (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
scholarly
Is not a requirement under policy, no matter if you repeat it however many times. I encourge you to lobby for policy changes on that in correct venues if it matters to you.
I can point to hundreds of media articles out there discussing Kim Kardashian's buttocks. Do you think that should be a Wikipedia article?
A topic being stupid is always irrelevant. All that matters is notability at the end of the day. If there was actually multiple WP:SIGCOV articles about Kim's ass, then sure. Make the article. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know scholarly sources are not a requirement to create a Wikipedia article. I am talking about their usefulness in giving a clear definition of a topic, especially something complex and often abstract as politics and relationship networks and their connections with organizations in politics. My Kardashian example is just a simplified one: there are "articles" that only give us photoshots of her buttocks, there are articles that discuss evolution of her physics in, so if there are scholarly articles that emphasize the former, it is better to define a topic based on that.
Donald Trump being notable does not make a synthesized article arbitrarily constructed from different materials talking about things related to him (and presenting it as something clearly defined or unified) have a claim to "notability".
It wil be easier to discuss things, if one represents the other's position in a truthful manner. Deamonpen (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Mar-a-Lago face truly notable, by your reckoning and standard then? I'll be honest: I've unironically been considering assembling material for a Donald Trump's make up article. Sometimes there's a brilliant has-to-be-researched angle to what "defines" a topic.
For example, see what I'm doing here:
From the POV of the relevant SMEs who matter (and outrank ANY opinion of ANY number of editors here) there is some modest semantic sort of quibbling on what falls under the definition. There are apparently a number of "scientifically skeptical" editors who want a perhaps far stricter interpretation, if my reading of past discussions is accurate, than what even relevant academic and field leaders in the matter of Field propulsion consider as under that header. So on my draft re-write, my principle focus is the question first of WHO is recognized as the authorities on the matter: get that cited and locked down. Then, after that, identify what the EXPERTS call field propulsion; get that next cited and locked down.
At that point, it's just a matter of crafting up a brilliant article of sub-parts and dropping every relevant piece of technology and theory into the correct bucket. The only reason no one has done it, as far as I can tell, is it's a rather stupidly huge amount of work on extremely obscure, esoteric high-level real world sciences. It'll probably be 700-800+ edits by the time I'm ready to port stuff from draft to live bit by bit. There, I have to figure out who really is in a place to define it--what you are after here--and then can I only with sourcing try to adjudicate that definition. On the flip side, I made Mosaic effect, which bizarrely didn't exist, for the same reason the field propulsion and related articles are a bit... ass. Harder topics that few will read, and that take a more extensive amount of brain labor to get it and do it right. But defining mosaic effect was easy-peasy, as it's been defined iteratively since the 1960s.
Here, on this topic, it's about a network or group or assemlage or workforce of an organization that literally didn't exist before February 2025, and caused fantastically outsized generational trauma to the capabilities and functionality of the United States, and the loss of probably thousands of years of institutional and scientific knowledge. People are dead because of DOGE. More will die for years because of DOGE.
So what is the definition? Same as every example of mine that I cited: what we have today in WP:RS. Just because it's a new novel thing (DOGE) or something from the 1960s-today (Mosaic) changes nothing in the calculus, where one has scholarly and popular reporting (mosaic) and one only has basically popular reporting (DOGE). We just treat it like any other article. No article or topic is a special animal. My sense is that your standard for all this is out of alignment with mainstream positioning of this standard across Wikipedia editors. Do you believe your level of standard here is the current day to day norm on all articles? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If every media article call a phenomenon Mar-a-Lago face and it has a relatively clear definition, I have no problem with it. Even if I will not be the one who writes that article myself. No matter how esoteric a field is, an article should start with the basics (especially one of this length, because a short article will be defined as a stub and others will at least understand that it's incomplete), that is the sources with the most authority in this field define it as such and such.
And also, I repeat, this is not DOGE and it is not called DOGE either. This is an article constructed on loosely related media articles written about things related to DOGE.
Also, as seen in my posts above, the way I see it is there are scholarly sources who delve into the topic of modern AI/defense capitalists, who have an outsized influence on the government, including DOGE (but they have not delved into that deeply in particular). A group bound together in certain purposes by tech is different from one bound by a "network" of personal relationships (especially when the editors treat being a member of Trump's transitional team = being a part of Trump's network = being a part of DOGE network), if that network and these common purpose exist at all.
The problem is not a new animal. The problem is having an article call something a species that belongs to the animal kingdom, when it is not even clear that it is an animal, or just one entity in the first place. Deamonpen (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or let's look at the Rommel myth article. The word "myth" itself is used by German and Anglo authors in different ways. But at least because the phrase itself is so common, you can have an article about the phrase, and make it clear that different authors might mean different things when they use it.
In the case there is a clearly defined entity, which has different names, you can have an article about that entity itself and make clear that different authors use different names.
But when multiple media articles use different names and interpretations for what-is-not-clearly-defined-to-be-a-single-entity-or-topic, this is a case of SYNTH. Deamonpen (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, from Chavkin onwards there is the camp that says the Thielverse encompasses the whole Silicon Valley (and beyond). By this definition anyone coming from the Silicon Valley or having business relations with it should have their name added to the table in this Network article. Deamonpen (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"What is it after all?"
People having worked for DOGE. Pretty simple.
Anything else? Ah yes, this -"having business relations with it should have their name added to the table in this Network article" No, because not everyone worked for DOGE. I thought I already addressed that paralogism. Search for "Aristotle" in the page. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. As a WP:SPINOUT not a deletion candidate -> a merge back to the original is better. Widefox; talk 20:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The split was made for size -- simply merging back into the DOGE article makes the doge article around 15,000 words and very hard to navigate. We either significantly pare this down per WP:NOTDB or delete it. The split was made per WP:WHENSPLIT because DOGE had gotten ridiculously large. Another option is to delete most of the table and keep the paragraphs above. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another option is to delete most of the table...
    That's a terrbible idea, being blunt. The better/only real policy-based outcomes are merge back and address or the middle ground I proposed above where closing admin userfies all table+sources data to someone who can use it for a red link incubator; build out all possible DOGE peoples to their own articles, then they can be aligned with a category and later a dedicated section to the DOGE template most of the articles have. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Department of Government Efficiency as to keep this would be to allow for a clear WP:POVFORK. This is a massive article that is absolutely not justified by the sources in a separate way. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iljhgtn: Per POVFORK "In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." yeah so thats not what happened here or the relationship between this article and the parent. So was linking POVFORK a mistake or am I missing some way that it applies? You have also neglected to name the POV you think it was forked to, for clarity's sake you actually need to make the argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose WP:WHENSPLIT is really the better direct policy to cite, I do not think there is sufficient reason for this to not just be a small to moderately sized section of its own on the original DOGE article. I am not convinced this is a sufficiently notable or distinct subject to be split out and have a article by itself. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a size split, not a content split. Relevance is inherited. Selbsportrait (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WHENSPLIT is not policy but what part of it are you intending to directly cite? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason this article was split in the first place was to shorten the ridiculously long Department of Government Efficiency article. That was the primary reason for the split; we should've taken POV forks into account. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a POV fork tho.
    It'd be nice to have less Reviewer Twos hot takes. Selbsportrait (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AnonymousScholar49: if the article doesn't have significant POV issues how do you arrive at that conclusion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They have a point that it is way too long for what it is -- overall not that bad but still. It turns into a catalogue of employees; no other well written article has a table like this. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can point to a lot of articles such as those for sports teams which do in fact have tables like this, even ones broken off into their own pages. I agree that the page is likely bloated beyond what is due, but deletion is not cleanup and even cleaned up its still too long to merge well... What does that have to do with POV though? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    undue weight to certain things is not npov, a lá a super long list of various affiliated people not seen in any pages for companies or government agencies. It makes sense for a sports squad, or season record, or list of top x people by x metric. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    a lá a super long list of various affiliated people not seen in any pages for companies or government agencies.
    For any article that gets into matters of "people associated with X...", their visible presence on company/government body sites is not, cannot, and never will be any sort of considerable factor with merit or agency. WP:RS plus WP:V governs first. That's immutable and non-debatable. Then secondary considerations like WP:DUE come into play. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not seen for other government agencies because they're generally not trying to keep secret their structure / workforce / roles / non-employees who nonetheless play a role. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Department of Government Efficiency. This article repeats much of the information covered by the DOGE article, and there's no need for the two. It's an unnecessary WP:SPINOUT.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually seeing very little repetition... Which means that we do have a size issue with merging... Department of Government Efficiency is 8,542 words already and this page is 2,157 which would put Department of Government Efficiency well into "Probably should be divided or trimmed" so unless the idea is to merge this in and spin something out that doesn't seem to make any sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Horse Eye's Back; a merge makes this article ridiculously long, a problem that has come up before and the reason why this article is seperate. We either have to significantly pare this down or delete it, in my view. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or userfy the table. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonymousScholar49 and @Selbsportrait -- this is what I meant in my userfy discussions:
@Selbsportrait, if you want, feel free to hit the Move button and carry that to your own space. I have a huge complex few backlog items ([26][27][28][29]) and won't be able to get to it for some time (like, in 2025 and likely much of 2026, and that's assuming a new shiny doesn't catch my eye). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
good point AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And likely the outcome as many of the delete !votes are not totally accurate (this was never a POV fork, etc.) and the support/merge type !votes are more policy grounded (being super blunt). The high level tallies are !deletes=5, !keeps=7, !merges=5 as I write this. The relist by @Svartner was a good idea meanwhile. There's definitely no !delete concensus as of today. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
Didn't know that we could move pages like that. Was working with local Obsidian vault. Thanks.
The "How to respond to AfDs" suggests to address concerns expressed by other editors with changes. For some reason I thought I had to wait the end of the process. I'll try to do that directly on the original page:
1. Notability should be easy to demonstrate. Turning the first sections into Background subsections would help.
2. That there is no original research is also easy to demonstrate. We need to emphasize the classification section, and to expand on why DOGE extends beyond official employees. (It'd be easier if it did.) For that we'll need make sure where DOGE is going: https://www.wired.com/story/next-stage-doge-elon-musk/ In a nutshell, SYNTH doesn't obtain when we say "A & B => C" and that we have sources for A, for B, for C, and for A & B => C. "But you decided to pick A or B" misconstrues SYNTH and undermines the very reason why the wiki relies on editors.
3. It's harder to *say* this is not a page pro or contra DOGE, as the wiki relies on navigation to show it. There are pages on Responses to DOGE, Lawsuits involving DOGE, and Agencies targeted by DOGE. There are more general pages too: online material it helped remove, layoffs so far. A page, like any paper, should be judged for what it is, not what the reviewer would have hoped to read in its stead.
4. Weight refers to relative size: ideal proportions of the parts of a page. It should not be used to go around issues of notability. Once notability is granted, weight can't undermine it. We could of course decide that the table is too big. That's fine. For that we'll need to come up with criteria we don't have for now.
Other secondary issues may also need to be addressed. Apologies in advance if I missed any.
5. As I see it, such split happens because it seems easier to describe *what* is something (concept, event, organization) and *how* it operates without having to detail *who*, *where*, or *why*. The who-question naturally leads to how all the actors are connected, and where they come from. All these details could be written back in the other various pages, in main text. After all, this is how things were last winter. That may not help readability. We should also bear in mind that DOGE is a one-of-a-kind event. Selbsportrait (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on the page this week-end.
The lead has been revised to represent the page a little better.
The Background section has been created, with a new section on the lists we use. The Composition section now contains subsections explaining the table's columns. There is still details to be added, but the current state should give a good idea of where we're going.
The table now has Keys for the main references, what I called earlier "trackers". Since it repeats them many, many times, we've tried to use them sparingly. With that notation system, we could add them all. That is, we can list every single tracker where a name appears. The table should become more compact now, with less blank cells.
I think we should keep the page, with the table. It could be renamed. Some material could be merged back elsewhere. Selbsportrait (talk) 14:47, 19 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Network_of_the_Department_of_Government_Efficiency&oldid=1307113137"