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 article looks to heavily fail to meet policy on neutrality (
WP:NPOV), instead it reads almost like an opinion piece. Numerous claims look to be backed up by singular sources and/or "making sources fit the narrative". Can't move to draft due to existing rejected draft. Suggest this be deleted (relatively quickly given it relates to a living person).
Rambling Rambler (
talk)
19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Medical experts have widely described the claims as baseless
Exactly two medical professionals are cited for this claim. That is nothing close to widely.
Russian propaganda and members of the far-right have made multiple ageist attacks and age-related conspiracy theories against Joe Biden. is nowhere near sourced enough (the only source having been for believed Russian interference in 2020) to make the claim.
Psychologists, political scientists, economists, historians, and other medical experts have described these ageist claims as forms of disinformation and misinformation was sourced by a single article with an interview with older voters, so is completely
WP:OR.
That is woefully failing policies on NPOV, for this very slanted article that read like "these are conspiracies that have been dismissed by professional associations", and is doubly concerning given the article is about the abilities of a living person.
Rambling Rambler (
talk)
19:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
They are allowed in extremely limited circumstances, namely according to the reasons listed which revolve around verifiability of a common non-neutral name. "Ageism against Joe Biden" is a made-up descriptor by an editorialising user.
Rambling Rambler (
talk)
14:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
That is not what RNEUTRAL says (and whether this should exist as a redirect is really better to discuss at
WP:RfD, assuming this gets closed in favor of deletion or redirection).
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
04:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
uh, it quite literally does:
"The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms."
So the article of this title very much doesn't fall into the acceptable realms of "non-neutral redirect" given "Ageism against Joe Biden" isn't a common term or substantiated in reliable sources.
Rambling Rambler (
talk)
21:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It allows it but it's still within the confines of the non-neutral term being a common subject or term used in reliable sources. That doesn't apply here for "ageism against Joe Biden".
Rambling Rambler (
talk)
20:15, 20 February 2024 (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.