Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age and health concerns of Joe Biden

Age and health concerns of Joe Biden

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Age and health concerns of Joe Biden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork, inappropriate WP:SPINOFF, hyper-fixating on the news-of-the-hour. There's nothing here that cannot be covered by a short mention at Joe Biden, and a bit more at Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Note that there was once at attempt at a similar article for Mr. Trump, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump. Zaathras (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zaathras (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator's rationale, as well as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOPAGE. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Changing !vote to Keep after finding the numerous subsequent arguments persuasive. This is clearly heading into WP:SNOW territory. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as the article stands it would warrant deletion, but I think the issue is article worthy in the wake of his debate performance. This is the most embattled a (presumptive) nominee has been since the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape incident in 2016, which has its own article not to mention that Biden has been dogged with questions about his cognition since even before he ran in 2020 and up until recently was dismissed as bad faith attacks by his opponents. In the last week, that is no longer the case.
• If the article can be fleshed out, it should be kept. PaulRKil (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Is this article going to have any staying power? If anything else develops on the subject, perhaps more can be added. I support Draftify at this point until/if more can be cohesively developed on this subject. BarntToust (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: I think life (events) will quickly develop this article. Unless Biden resigns, the days and months will roll on and every health incident will be scrutinized. When he resigns, health problems will be the reason for his resignation – an important event and also a detailed analysis. There is no need to rush into deleting the article. Then we will need to restore. Wikipek (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, and consequently restore Health of Donald Trump, which was merged/redirected pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump. Both articles covered much the same kinds of concern. BD2412 T 15:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with this. Trump and Biden's health and age have both been extremely scrutinized over the years. MarkiPoli (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment The creation was a bit hasty and puts us in news territory, which is not great, but if GnocchiFan keeps adding 1-2kB a day it will be hard to justify deletion(they're the one who created it). The Trump matter needs its own discussion, it's an old one and tit-for-tat is a bad look. Trump doesn't have the media jumping on him for this, and he didn't stand gerbil-eyed with his mouth agape at the recent debate. [1] SmolBrane (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@SmolBrane: The significance of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump is not with respect to the tit-for-tat issue, but with respect to the specific points of discussion raised there that are applicable to this discussion, specifically the assertion made in that discussion that we should not have any freestanding articles on the health of current public figures, and that Wikipedia should follow the Goldwater Rule prohibiting medical professionals from commenting on the health of public figures who they have not personally examined. A great many participants in that discussion supported imposing such a rule, which would obviously vitiate inclusion of comparable medical opinions about Biden absent personal examination. I opposed the imposition of that rule in the Trump discussion, and would oppose it here equally. We are in an historic moment of having two octogenarian presidential candidates, and the Trump article, at the time of its deletion, had dozens of high-level sources commenting on issues with regard to Trump's health, so it is a fair bellwether for the admissibility of the Biden article. BD2412 T 18:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I am simply uncomfortable turning this AfD into a discussion about that other guy's AfD. WP:WAX applies and I'm not convinced the situation with Biden is adequately symmetrical for Health of Donald Trump !votes here. Once this discussion closes we could have a similar one regarding Trump imo. Note that Biden wasn't mentioned once on the Trump AfD. Regards SmolBrane (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@SmolBrane: The shared underlying questions remain open, however. 1) Should Wikipedia have articles on the "health" of living public figures at all? 2) Should Wikipedia be bound by the Goldwater Rule, which prohibits reporting opinions on the heath of individuals by persons who have not conducted an examination of those individuals? BD2412 T 02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The irony being--the Goldwater Rule article on this wiki allocates its largest section to a particular former American president(and no one else), observed by someone on the talk page as essentially a coat rack. The goldwater discussion should occur elsewhere if it's going to be a policy. This is headed for a speedy close. SmolBrane (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

With how his health and age might end his time in office, I think you have to keep it. Vinnylospo (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep with the insistence that it be improved to the point of being brought in line with the encyclopedic nature and aims of Wikipedia. I was a proponent of the creation of this article, but it really was launched too quickly and improperly. As I said on the talk page for Mr Biden's campaign, it's good if it enables us to analyze his health and its implications quickly and in real time, in a way that wasn't possible in the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the highly consequential nature of his health, but it can't be treated as a joking matter. At the very least, better must be done for a leading image than to employ a picture of Mr. Biden standing before his lit eighty-first-birthday cake. 216.255.100.62 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That's representative of a strategy from the administration and campaign - treat the age issue with humor. We aren't saying it's funny or not funny, it's just emblematic of part of their strategy and consequently part of the page. Maybe not first image, though. MarkiPoli (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is part of a research project, not a marketing campaign.

So long as it's here... Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I will move this image further down to the part of the article which refers to the White House response (I think the joke birthday is relevant there). Feel free to choose another image for the lead and add some further detail if you see fit. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm rubbish at image procurement and insertion. Anyway, wouldn't the thing to do for an article like this normally be to use a picture of him that would normally be used otherwise, his official portrait or a picture of him stumping, or something of the like? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS, or Merge, as was done with AFD Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump (ended up a merge). If we do less than that here, it looks like we're playing politics in favor of the other candidate. — Maile (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Currently, it really looks like we're are playing politics in favor of other candidate. However, after making the article more neutral (adding opinions about the lack of health obstacles, of which there are many) and perhaps changing the title ("Age and health of Joe Biden"?, "Health of Joe Biden"?), the article can be kept. The topic is very widely discussed, attracts attention and causes consequences at the center of the election campaign, unlike in the case of Donald Trump. Wikipek (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Happy to change to Age and health of Joe Biden when this AfD is over. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• The thing is that the course of the conversation concerning the health of Mr. Biden is such that discussion on his age is going to be part of and in tandem with discussion about his health, since the end she has already attained has implications for his current health, and maintaining it is key to furthering his age. Since the two subjects have been introduced as a duality, the thing to do is to build both aspects up, so that each can facilitate the furtherance of the other. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and restore Health of Donald Trump - Both have received significant coverage in reliable sources and are likely to do so well before and after the current debate news cycle. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with above Keep both. Fodient (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Merge with Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign, List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign and 2024 United States presidential debates#Reception and aftermath. Each of the articles are rather weak to stand on its own merits (with the 1st and 2nd article falling under WP:REDUNDANT), but, given that the health concerns described in this article have come to a head in the current political controversy, these 3 articles could together provide cogent context and information regarding the current state of Biden's campaign as described in WP:MERGEREASON. Meanwhile, the section on the June debate on the 2024 article is large enough, at ~3500 words, to be arguably eligible for WP:SPINOFF, especially when accounting for coverage of previous presidential debates (e.g. 2020 United States presidential debates#October 22 presidential debate (Belmont University) at ~1,500 words). Much of this undue weight is due to the sheer length of the "Reception and aftermath" section (~2000 words), which this article would merge neatly with and provide appropriate context for. Baldemoto (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Those subjects don't have a whole lot to do with one another. How can they stand as a solid unit together, and how would it not eventually makes sense to split them as the topics are grow too big to fit into one article going forward? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Without the media coverage and analysis that has transpired over the past 2 weeks, this topic would not be notable enough to warrant an article under WP:GNG. The reason why this article would be considered notable is because of the June presidential debate, and the flood of consistent news coverage, discussions, and analysis that transpired after the fact. This is plainly evident in the fact that 12 of the 34 citations in this article were written in the past 2 weeks alone. This article is also relied upon to provide the background for Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign. Therefore, it makes sense that these articles should be merged, with this article serving the purpose of providing appropriate context. If the article becomes too unwieldy, it would likely be due to the constant stream of new calls for Biden to step aside, which could remain separate in an article reminiscent of List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Baldemoto (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The article will continue to be improved with the increasing amount public interest in his high-profile gaffes both domestically and abroad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZR1748 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, there is more than sufficient independent sources and coverage now for this. It is impossible to miss, but the original section should still be retained, at least in large part, on the Public image of Joe Biden page. That should not be entirely removed from that page for this page's creation. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• I added an excerpt from this article on the public image of Joe Biden page, which I think is appropriate if this article stays. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep -- this is a big deal--involving not just Biden but many Democratic leaders, and Republicans too, as well as a lo of reporters and physicians. I think it will permanently change how Americans evaluate older politicians. Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep This is a significant matter and has been covered in the media extensively. TheInevitables (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Not only has concerns regarding Biden's health been around for a good while now through reliable coverage but this matter has only increased now that many Democrat leaders have called for him to drop out of this year's US election following the June debate with his health being the common denominator and rationale. I propose bringing back the Health of Donald Trump article for the same reasons that I have already described. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think the article about Donald Trump's health should have been deleted either. In this case the coverage is even more universal, and until the election will probably get too extensive to just merge it into the main article without bloating that one. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep This is a distinct and separate topic, and should not be deleted or merged with the article on his calls to drop out. Both should be kept as articles, as the latter is a recent phenomenon, while his age and health has been an issue/discussion for multiple years. (Ageofultron 17:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - seems to mirror the same discussion happening on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Calls_for_Joe_Biden_to_suspend_his_2024_United_States_presidential_campaign

Whoever closes that should close this Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• As just an occasional contributor to English-language Wikipedia (active mainly in German-language WP and on Commons), I will formally abstain here (as I'm not familiar enough with en-WP's practices), but my impression is that this article as well as Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign are rather short (when compared to the Joe Biden main article), not many language versions of Wikipedia have decided to split these topics into separate articles (in this case, only French and Finnish Wikipedia, and in the case of the other article, only Icelandic), and it would make more sense IMHO to incorporate them into the main article and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's the correct place for this information as well. I think I remembered hearing that Ronald Reagan had age and health concerns at the end of his presidency, but I can't see that article being kept if it were created now. SportingFlyer T·C 09:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep This topic was already a subject of discussion in the media before the June 2024 debate, but this topic & the closely related topic Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign have been sucking all the air out of the room ever since then. At least in America's news media, concerns over Biden's age (and by extension his political future) even managed to palpably overshadow the news about the stunning election results in the UK and France. It's hard to argue this is a non notable subject. I'm surprised this is even at AfD.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete this is just an essay. There's no reason why this shouldn't be included somewhere on the site, and some of it can be merged, but I think we're confusing news and political commentary with encyclopedic content, and I think this fails the 10 year test. SportingFlyer T·C 09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge with Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign. The topic of his declining health and overall viability doesn't need multiple articles. Swinub (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge back to Public image of Joe Biden. Absolutely no need for a separate article here. Can also be merged to the Calls For page. Again, we do NOT need this many separate pages covering closely related topics. Reywas92^Talk 14:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator’s and BD2412’s rationales, and Reywas92’s recommendation. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and merge with preexisting pages on the topic, most notably on the Joe Biden and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign pages, or any of the other pages mentioned by previous commenters. BootsED (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete obvious politically motivated content fork. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I think this article wouldn’t be super noteworthy had it not been for the June debate performance. The president had experienced widespread questioning from those on both sides of the aisle as to whether or not he is fit to continue holding office. NathanBru (talk
• Delete - severe violation of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NEUTRALITY to dedicate an entire page to a right-wing political talking point and treat it as fact. There's no page about age and health concerns of Ronald Reagan, who was reported to be senile in office and actually had Alzheimer's. Jaydenwithay (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Jaydenwithay: We do, however, have articles on the Health of Abraham Lincoln, Health of Pope John Paul II, Health of Adolf Hitler, and so on, so these certainly can stand the test of time. We could have an article on the health of Ronald Reagan. It just needs to be written. BD2412 T 18:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge Where Necessary There's really no context to this article. It's definitely an important note in the conversation of Biden's current term and campaign, but in a vacuum it doesn't make any sense other than as an extension to those other articles. What happens to this page when he eventually dies? Doesn't pass the time test here. ⠀^tomástomás_tomás⠀talk⠀ 04:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - this topic meets GNG. Biden's health and age concerns is squaring up to be a major issue in the 2024 election and thus has been subjected to significant attention in reliable sources, especially post-debate. There's no article where this can be comprehensibly covered without creating undue weight. Therefore, this fork is appropriate. R. G. Checkers ^talk 05:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete unless a similar article is made called Concerns that Donald Trump is a narcissistic moron. The fact is, this is an unnecessary content fork, we could create endless fork articles about the pros and cons of the major party candidates that get press coverage, as well Concern that a worm really ate RFK, Jr.'s brain.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Milowent: Not to belabor the point, but the last version of the Health of Donald Trump article that is proposed to be restored in tandem with this article being kept had some discussion of armchair evaluations of Trump having narcissistic personality disorder, as well as commentary on Trump's own estimations of his genius. I think this would qualify for your "similar article" proposition, but for the title. BD2412 T 17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that context, BD2412, i don't think "Health of Donald Trump" is anywhere remotely similar, but i need an article titled Does J.D. Vance Know Trump Almost Had His Last Vice President Killed? to feel this should stay. I fully admit to having a very biased view of Trump, which is also 100% correct.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Not everything needs an article Cwater1 (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong keep, this article has received steady coverage for quite some time now. Concerns over Biden's health have been raised since the start of his 2020 campaign, it's hardly "news-of-the-hour". Additionally, Wikipedia is built off consensus, not precedent. The deletion of a similar article on Trump is irrelevant.

Slamforeman (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. There is so much independent coverage of this that it clearly passes WP:GNG as a standalone topic. I am not concerned that this falls into WP:NOTNEWS as this has been an ongoing concern since the previous election, and as BD2412 pointed out, there are articles on the health of other leaders whose time has long passed. The last concern is whether this ends up being a WP:POVFORK, but I don't see why careful editing cannot end up in a balanced take on the subject, and merging with another article does not really change this. Overall, I do not think there is a strong policy rationale to delete the article. Malinaccier (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)