This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
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
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
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 Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
There's a tag questioning the notability of the subject. There are about 10 high class reliable sources including
The Wall Street Journal, NPR, The Independent, New Republic, and Bloomberg, so I'll remove the tag. Somebody might be wanting to delete the article, but that's a different tag, and I think it would come up with the same conclusion: the subject's notable and the article should stay. The only thing I could see that leans toward deletion is WP:BLP1E (one event - everything seems to be happening within 2 weeks), but with the racist social media post accusations and the resignation, it's starting to look like more than 1E and news coverage will go on longer. But file a proper AfD if you'd like. Smallbones(smalltalk)05:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's not remotely notable. You can fold it under the DOGE article. 2600:1012:B1A7:9BA2:11DB:D98E:9F32:B3FA (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue every original DOGE staffer is notable enough to warrant their own wikipedia page considering the amount of news coverage they've received and the high profile nature of their positions Xy1231321 (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he is notable enough to be on dedicated wiki. there is a controversy and he is 25 year old DOGE staffer.
he was put in charge of the United States Treasury payments computer that disburses $5 trillion annually at 25 years old, that's pretty notable Xy1231321 (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as a member of the DOGE team and a person with a documented racist social-media history he is extremely notable as an example of what Musk values on that team.
The tag should be removed. This individual has satisfied the criteria for notability several times over. 50.186.184.89 (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page is clearly not notable and it should be deleted. Wikipedia is a great site that I enjoy but it is frankly ridiculous how it treats certain political events. There is nothing here that is not already covered in the DOGE page. We don't need a page for the sake of having a page. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been litigated twice now and both times editors have determined that the individual is notable and the page should be kept. 50.186.184.89 (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> “There is nothing here that is not already covered in the DOGE page”
This is false and if you took 2 minutes to skim the DOGE page you would see that you are wrong.
Regardless, it makes no sense to delete or merge this article. The page is clearly notable. The individual was covered across all mainstream media outlets over multiple days for several distinct events that set a historic precedent. 50.186.184.89 (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread the comment from Smallbones. The subject is objectively notable. There are a plethora of high quality sources documenting multiple events on a national stage involving this individual. Xy1231321 (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that someone who was:
1. given admin access to the central payment system for the US Treasury at 25 2. doxed shortly after and found to have posted racist tweets resulting in his resignation 3. reinstated after public support from the Vice President and President of the US and Elon Musk and 4. confirmed to be working in the office of the President and Social Security after all of this
Strong oppose: Substantial coverage across reliable sources sustained over multiple months, which establishes independent notability 143.105.2.227 (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 19 March 2025
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Marko Elez → ? – This article is not really about Elez, rather it's about the controversy surrounding his hiring. There were editors who mentioned this in the first AFD, and I agree. I don't have a very good suggestion for where this could be move, but I would like something along the lines of Hiring of Marko Elez at the Department of Government Efficiency (but that seems long). I still think the article isn't really notable, and would be best covered at Department of Government Efficiency but I'm aware that doesn't appear to be the consensus at the moment. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There are several distinct events in this article that cumulatively confer notability. Trying to reduce these distinct events to a single, broad umbrella title does not make sense. The common thread is the individual involved. If the goal is to find one catchall title that captures the entire saga around this individual, I would argue the motivation is flawed because you could apply the same logic to pretty much anyone.
The article is about Marko Elez, his work leading up to DOGE, his work at several agencies through DOGE, the controversy around his Treasury IT access, the controversy around his tweets, the whole rehiring saga, and the controversy around his sending day.
We’ve had this debate several times now and the clear consensus is that this individual is independently notable and the article should remain as-is. Xy1231321 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that this individual has continued to receive sustained and significant news coverage a month after his name became public Xy1231321 (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the controversy surrounding his resigning and re-hiring? His hiring doesn't appear to have been controversial and there is a separate controversy about his activities at DOGE, we've also had even more sigcov[1][2] since the last discussion so not sure what you want to do here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The OP also added a notability tag despite the two AfDs saying keep, arguing that there was no consensus to remove it in the discussion above, saying " Surviving AFD does not mean it is notable long term". That's of course not true, and as Horse Eye's Back says, multiple controversies make up a biograph - there are many examples of biographies on WIkipedia like this on e. Doug Wellertalk09:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this has already been litigated multiple times and there is clear consensus for keeping the article as is. The individual has satisfied the criteria for notability several times over. It makes no sense to lump so many distinct events into a single event article. 129.222.162.136 (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The argument is poorly reasoned. This proposal is borderline spam after the recent AFDs. There is no single “event” that covers this individual’s biography. This individual continues to get daily sigcov and is clearly notable. 100.15.215.44 (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You must be logged in to post a comment.