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 History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
"not referencing the original context of the usage by Alcuin (739) who in a letter" - according to the entry on Alcuin he was 4 years old when saying it. Hmm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.254.176.185 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I argue that the Elon response to his poll is a non-trivial usage due to the fact that the poll had over 134M views and the tweet in question, at this time, has 949.2K likes, therefore many more views, therefore has a far more significant reach and cultural impact than a pamphlet from over 300 years ago, therefore should be included on this wiki page. Nexxuz (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of people who viewed the poll in question is irrelevant for the purposes of determining notability on Wikiepdia. See WP:TRIVIALMENTION which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis mine). Until the source you are using is a secondary source, it does not rise to the standard of notability see also WP:N which further stipulates that "sources should be secondary", see WP:PRIMARY point #5 which says "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" as well as WP:NOTEVERYTHING. See also WP:TWITTER which stipulates "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". X0n10ox (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But far more important this article isn't even the article about the general usage of "Vox Populi, Vox Dei", this article is about a specific document that was called "Vox Populi, Vox Dei", which was the name of a whig tract (a pamphlet) from 1709. The article literally says as much as well in the section that rather succiently says "For broader coverage of uses unrelated to the tract, see Vox populi, vox Dei". This simply isn't even the right place for this information to be placed even if it did meet the standard of WP:N. X0n10ox (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
