Ageism against Joe Biden : 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 ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Politics .  Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete/merge this clearly falls within Public image of Joe Biden and having its own article is WP:UNDUE - there isn't a separate article regarding racism towards Obama which was much more egregious.  LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 19:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep WP: NPOV does not mean false balance.  Medical experts have widely described the claims as baseless.  WP: BLP also requires this.  Article meets WP: GNG .  ShirtNShoesPls ( talk ) 19:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only medical experts who can actually make an assessment in a clinical setting literally work for the White House and their statements are super polished.  LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 19:41, 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 ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns : There's already some coverage of the topic there, could just add the decent bits of this article to this existing coverage (and redirect there) 🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 20:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested above is fine, this is an extension of that idea, not otherwise widely discussed.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above.  The article fails WP:NPOV and the content spread is one-sided, but in the main article, it can work.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 20:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete — I rarely support deletion, but the current title is not acceptable.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree about the title being unacceptable, but WP:NOTCLEANUP .  🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 21:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Might not be cleanup, but think it'd have to be a merge without leaving a redirect because of how openly non-neutral the title is.  Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 21:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] good point.  🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 22:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirects are allowed to be non-neutral; see WP:RNEUTRAL .  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 23:31, 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 ] Point 2 clearly allows situations similar to this.  Again, though, this isn't really a debate for AfD.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 19:22, 19 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 ] Merge as noted above.  This is a weird niche of anti-Biden disinformation, and it does not seem to warrant standalone coverage.  Zaathras ( talk ) 21:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns per HotMess and others above.  Fails WP:NPOV , WP:DUE , and WP:NOPAGE .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 22:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per above SKAG123 ( talk ) 01:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to suggested page, or Delete .  As it stands, the page appears to fail NPoV.  GoodDay ( talk ) 21:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per nom.  Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 11:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Nothing useful here.  Riposte97 ( talk ) 23:18, 21 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.

Discussion outcome: merge