Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Joe Biden gaffes

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 result was delete. I am willing to restore the article temporarily in draft space, if anyone wants to selectively merge parts of it into other articles, such as Public image of Joe Biden or Bidenisms $Salvio giuliano$ 09:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Joe Biden gaffes[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:COATRACK and WP:SOAPBOX, this is not an appropriate WP:NPOV article. While Veracity of statements by Donald Trump provides substantial commentary and analysis of his outright fabrication and extensive lies, this is merely a list of times Joe Biden has made misstatements in speeches, with such mundane points as billionaires paying 3% in taxes rather than 8% or that prescription drug caps he passed had taken effect already rather than in two years. Is today's addition that he accidentally called a gun by the wrong name really such a purposeful blunder? There's a wide difference between a running list of fact-checks (in the latter case, the editor simply sourcing to a transcript and a separate news article rather than something calling it a gaffe) and actual encyclopedic discussion of a pattern of lying, so I don't believe this warrants a stand-alone article or list. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage of these mistakes. Whether he did it on purpose or not is irrelevant. When he was younger he was caught lying as well. The article mentions things he lied about back in the 1970s. Click the reference search at the top of the AFD and check for "Joe Biden Gaffes" and you get ample results. [1] Dream Focus 18:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An honest politician? Wow, I've got a deal on swampland in Florida for you... Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The top sources I see are Fox News (do I really need to explain why that’s a bad source) Bustle (not a reliable source, let alone a reliable political one) and a satirical book about his flubs. They’re famous enough in popular political culture to deserve maybe a section on his article or something similar but any kind of “list of failures of X” is inherently biased and BLP violating. The Trump article is about an overall subject (Trump’s habitual extreme dishonesty) where as this is a WP:SYNTH collection of inaccurate, not-completely-honest, or outright false statements— which all politicians make. Plus the title is terrible, insulting and sounds like something off of Conservapedia. Dronebogus (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that whether he's a liberal or a conservative (i.e. whether an article criticizing him "sounds like something off of" Conservapedia or Liberapedia, or for that matter Anarchopedia or Commupedia or Monarchopedia) has bearing on whether this article meets WP:GNG. jp×g 01:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the fence about this one, we have similar lists for Donald Trump, this feels like an attack article. To keep it neutral, I'd remove the less trustworthy sources (Newsweek sure isn't). I'd prefer a more critical discussion around these foibles than just a list of xyz silly things a person has done. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
remark: i have removed the Newsweek source per the concerns raised here. as for the remaining 59 refs, only five of them are from Fox News and i have no reason to doubt their reliability, but ymmv. .usarnamechoice (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FOXNEWS Dronebogus (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Misleading WP:COATRACK. "Gaffe" != "false or misleading claims", but from the first version of this article, the latter has been the framing. The article appears to be an attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE, compiling a list of times Biden said something untrue or misleading. The only reason we have a stand-alone article on the veracity of statements by Donald Trump is because there is a massive amount of literature about the phenomenon of Trump lying, and not just criticizing specific instances (which we could compile for every politician). The title of the article, if it weren't for the actual content of the article, might be an appropriate and notable subject, but we already have two articles which cover "Biden gaffes" which could be expanded: Public image of Joe Biden and Bidenisms. (IMO the best option for the Bidenisms article, as I said in the Trumpisms AfD recently, would be to transform it into something like "Speaking style of Joe Biden", but that's a separate question.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or a selective merge to Public image of Joe Biden. The current article isn't a list of gaffes, it is a list of news articles that say Biden said something false -- and it actively avoids any evidence that the specific situations listed are important or significant in any way. I would imagine that the Neil Kinnock plagiarism incident would be in a better article on this topic. It might be possible to rescue the article, but the multiple problems in the current version are too severe to keep this as-is. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or a selective merge to Public image of Joe Biden per Walt Yoder. There are several problems, including what is considered a gaffe. --Enos733 (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this who article should be deleted and selectively merged into Bidenisms. This is where most of it fits. - Enos733 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selective merge into Bidenisms, using Bushism as a model for improving that article. Selective because an exhaustive list of every time a public speaker "gaffed" is not at all appropriate. Roll 3d6 (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:COATRACK and WP:SOAPBOX. 'Nuff said. TH1980 (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is at a bewildering title, and frankly, it is bad. There is a bizarre juxtaposition between "saying something awkward" and "lying": even among the lies, it doesn't really distinguish between minor quibbles ("CNN thought the quote was 'misleading'") and rather flagrant lies ("Biden claimed he was a coal miner"). That said, the purpose of AfD is to determine if a topic is notable, not whether an article is crap. I feel like, given that there are fifty-nine references currently in the article, it is probably safe to say that the subject of this particular president saying stuff that isn't true is fairly notable, at least compared to our actual standards and policies on notability. jp×g 01:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is indeed to decide whether the subject is notable, but we have a title about one subject and an article about another. Which one is your keep !vote for? If it's gaffes, how does that reconcile with the content? If it's lies, which are the best articles that treat the lies as a group such that we pass WP:NLIST and WP:NOPAGE, of the sort that justify the notability of e.g. the veracity of statements by Donald Trump article? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not nominate this on notability concerns; yes conceptually it would pass GNG that there is coverage of gaffes and misstatements, but that does not mean that such a topic is otherwise appropriate for an article. AFD is not just for determining notability, and this page is not in compliance with other policies; likewise per WP:NOPAGE, others have identified other pages that could cover these general concepts with a degree of notability. Reywas92^Talk 02:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NLIST, stinks of political POV. Unless sources can be shown that this subject has multiple non-POV IS RS SIGCOV, covering it as a group, it should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 05:41, 4 April 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.