George Santos biographical misrepresentations: A slightly different focus, but still the same underlying BLP and POVFORK issues.  Daniel Case ( talk ) 03:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is a split (if you want to call it a "fork" be my guest) from the main article, George Santos .  The main article has the template {{too long}}.  Per WP:LENGTH , when an article has over 15,000 words it " almost certainly should be divided or trimmed ".  To me, this seems like an obvious choice for splitting.  Isabela ciao ( talk ) 03:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please reread the linked AfD.  LENGTH does not trump BLP.  And creating an article whose sole purpose is to aggregate bad stuff about a living person goes against BLP.  Daniel Case ( talk ) 04:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems strange that content that is perfectly OK in the biographical article is not OK when split out to an article of its own.  Isabela ciao ( talk ) 04:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said, reread the previous AfD.  You're missing the point.  See WP:POVFORK : " This second article is known as a 'POV fork' of the first, and is inconsistent with policy: all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. " This takes on extra importance when the article is about a living person.  Daniel Case ( talk ) 16:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since Consensus can change , the previous AfD is not binding.  This is especially true when the previous AfD did not attract too many votes.  WP:POVFORK is a subsection of WP:CFORK .  CFORK specially says that under most circumstances forks are OK. I don't see how this could be an unacceptable POVFORK given that it's the exact same content from the original article.  Isabela ciao ( talk ) 17:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, consensus can change, but consensus cannot change policy.  The previous AfD was underlain by the summerlong talk page discussion I alluded to in my nomination , which was formally closed as establishing no consensus to split off an article like this.  While that does not mean that consensus is against splitting off an article at all , it definitely does mean that consensus should be on the side of a proposed split before it is made.  And since this split was made without even bothering to initiate any such discussion, it is by definition against consensus, an even stronger argument for deletion than POVFORK.  As to which, it boggles my mind that you would so completely ignore the quoted language from POVFORK.  It's there for a reason.  It's there because when you say "in most circumstances it says forks are OK", you should probably go to some length to enumerate those situations when they are not .  POVFORK is one of them.  To keep returning to the idée fixe you have about the content being identical is to so widely miss the point I am making (nor would I be the only one) that I wonder if you are trying to do so on purpose.  It is how the split article would use that content ... as basically a bill of indictment.  When it is within the article, we can justify it in the broader context of a warts-and-all biography.  As a stand-alone, it is as TulsaPoliticsFan } observed at the other AfD a "dumping ground", a "bad stuff about George Santos" (or in this case "lies George Santos tells or told on himself" (and would you include in that article times where his stories have checked out?).  It would be by definition not neutral.  And really, there is not the urgency to make the article smaller that you seem to feel.  The servers will not crash because it is too big.  It is better that when we split the article, we do it right rather than do it fast.  Daniel Case ( talk ) 19:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dumping ground ?? ?  How would the split off article constitute any more of "a dumping ground" than the current section within the bio?  Isabela ciao ( talk ) 23:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SPLITOUT .  I fail to see how this violates BLP or POV.  His numerous, brazen lies are very well-documented and well-known.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 15:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then I can only assume you're not very familiar with BLP.  No one is doubting the sourcing.  BLP requires, however, that we be especially circumspect for reasons beyond that.  Daniel Case ( talk ) 16:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would being circumspect make any sense when he's known round the world as a Trump-class liar, the butt of jokes by late-night talk show hosts?  That horse (or rather herd) has long since left the barn.  Should we also tiptoe around Pol Pot and say he made a mean fish amok ?  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, Pol Pot 's dead, and has been for long enough that BRDP doesn't apply, so any point you thought you were making has been moot from the get-go. Daniel Case ( talk ) 17:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Do we really need a huge list of his lies? He was a one term politician who will be largely forgotten in 50 years. Slatersteven ( talk ) 16:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wouldn't " [he'll] be largely forgotten in 50 years " be a keep argument to ensure that future generations remember? Per WP:NTEMP , if something is notable now, it's notable forever. As for the size, it's all about what has been reported in WP:RS . Isabela ciao ( talk ) 17:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] " Wouldn't '[he'll] be largely forgotten in 50 years' be a keep argument to ensure that future generations remember? " Not really; see WP:CRYSTAL .  And in any event, yes, Santos himself will always be notable by virtue of having served, however briefly, in a national legislature (After all, we have an article about a woman who served in the U.S. Senate for one day , although to be fair that's not the only thing she's notable for).  But whether that long-term notability requires a separate article on his biographical misrepresentations is an entirely different question.  Daniel Case ( talk ) 19:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was of course referring to this article, and saying something will still be notable in 50 years is also Crystal balling, notability is not temporary, but it must be lasting.  We only need a few choice examples in his bio, not every example no matter how trivial.  Slatersteven ( talk ) 11:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I have WP:BLP concerns with a split that is "Person's biographical misrepresentations."  I'd prefer to split out sections on major events he's involved in (split to election articles, the ethics report, his expulsion, specific legal cases).  I will note that discussion on his talk page has not found consensus for any specific split despite the fact there tends to be consensus a split is needed.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 20:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where in WP:BLP does it say that an article titled "Person's wrongdoing" is unacceptable?  Isabela ciao ( talk ) 20:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete There have been discussions at Talk:George Santos regarding a (different) page split, but there is not a consensus to do so.  As it stands, the article is a copy-paste of George_Santos#False_biographical_statements , done without following split procedures in a potentially contentious case.  The user who did the split left the article with this useless rump section (now reverted) rather than with appropriate summary style that includes all the main information, so this was an inappropriate content fork that hides the information from the main article rather than an agreed-upon, properly-performed split.  Reywas92 Talk 04:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought that what you call "a useless rump section " was an "appropriate summary style that includes all the main information".  But if it wasn't you're free to improve.  I don't see why that should be a reason to delete.  Isabela ciao ( talk ) 23:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Slatersteven.  There is no need for Wikipedia to keep a laundry list of every falsehood this guy has spun.  Such details are trivial and, quite frankly, just not interesting or notable enough to warrant inclusion (see: WP:NOTEVERYTHING ).  We should instead focus on the most critical details (if there are any), summarize, and just leave it at that.  Kcmastrpc ( talk ) 23:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : as a blatant violation of WP:BLP .  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:06, 30 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete