Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Dinner with Adolf

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. Stifle (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Dinner with Adolf

[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)

Per WP:SUSTAINED, WP:GNG does not override WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. There has been almost no coverage of this article past the third week of April 2025. The only two sources I have found after that time period that mentioned the short story in any detail were published in May 2025. (https://thejewishindependent.com.au/not-seeing-oy-to-oy-the-generational-divide-over-holocaust-humour, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-five-percent/202505/talking-with-the-enemy) (Excluding the one detailed below.)

The July 2025 source only rehashes what "My Dinner with Adolf" was about and focuses on another event, the Obama partnership. All in all, I don't think this is a topic best served by an article versus a few sentences on the Larry David page. Bremps... 19:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Literature, Politics, Germany, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no objection to deleting this article. I may have been the editor that approved it when performing New Page Patrol tasks (or so the notification I just received says). But if several months have gone by with virtually no independent sources talking about it, it is not notable. Noleander (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Larry David#"My Dinner With Adolf" essay (2025) as a proper WP:ATD. Nathannah • 📮 21:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable minor essay. Metallurgist (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NTEMP, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. This is not WP:ROUTINE coverage. Op-ed articles don't normally have this type of significant coverage devoted to them across news outlets of all sorts of focuses or political alignments. The initial op-ed received significant coverage from The Hollywood Reporter, NBC, and Fox News, among others. Bill Maher's rebuttal on Piers Morgan's show received significant coverage including in USA Today, The Hill, and Vanity Fair. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MagicatthemovieS, AllCatsAreGrey, No Swan So Fine, and Mamani1990: pinging users who were involved in previous discussion at Talk:My Dinner with Adolf#Notability? who have not yet contributed to this discussion. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG. I agree with Bait30, per WP:NTEMP, ongoing coverage is not needed. As the NYT explained, the bar is really high when making comparisons to Hitler, and they chose to publish it because it passed that bar. This is in itself notable. Then numerous other outlets covered it m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 11:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Per WP:NSUSTAINED:

"Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability."

I think this policy was written with this sort of article in mind. Even if the coverage was in depth, it was all in one "burst" that dissipated quickly. Bremps... 04:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others have stated, not notable. Trivial as well. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 17:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Can this be merged into the larger page on Larry David? I think it warrants it's own section as it has gotten coverage from the press but maybe not enough for it's own page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This is a well sourced article, but I must agree that its scope does seem rather concentrated. I see the point made about "once notable. always notable", and I concur, but the mentions in the media do seem rather transient. If anyone wills I change my !vote to reflect a stronger perspective, I'm open to being convinced one way or the other. Kvinnen (talk) 05:47, 2 October 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.