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. Consensus is clear. Whether some of this content is added to
grapefruit is a separate question (I note that
Watermelon and
Pumpkin list the largest-recorded instances).
BD2412T 01:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Non-notable couple. We don't consider World Records notable unless there is sourcing that talks about them in detail. Beyond confirming the largeness of the grapefruit, there is nothing about these people. Gsearch goes straight into social media links.
Oaktree b (
talk) 16:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Do we have any proof over the payment claim other than "trust me bro"? Guinness does not list any pay to play fees on their site, though if you pay you can get your application looked at faster -
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/faqsKatoKungLee (
talk) 21:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Your list has two sources, a Fox news piece on them, and a newspaper story. The rest are social medial posts. I wouldn't consider either of the first two sources as substantial. The grapefruit might have a chance at being listed in largest fruit or some sort of article like that, these people aren't notable.
Oaktree b (
talk) 18:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
- @
Fram - They hold two different records - the heaviest and largest grapefruit in circumference. These are separate records, since you can hold one and not the other. The sources in the article mentioned as such. Additionally, the record is still ongoing as is any other record. It could be broken tomorrow, so it's not a one time thing. So it's not really a news thing since the story could completely change tomorrow.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 17:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - clearly not notable. This is the type of filler coverage that is used frequently. A case of
WP:BIO1E (even if it is two completely irrelevant world records, it's still the same topic).
Onel5969TT me 17:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Onel5969 - How can you have two different records but only be notable for one thing? We already [
|discussed this earlier], but can you please link to the notable world records rule?
KatoKungLee (
talk) 17:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - they had 15 minutes of fame and
WP:NOTNEWS.
JMWt (
talk) 17:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think there is much comparison between someone who is famous, briefly, for growing large grapefruit and high scorers in the NBA. For a start, people who have long careers in the NBA are notable as per
WP:NSPORTSJMWt (
talk) 17:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The record is ongoing. It's not a one and done record. It could be broken, correct? I have information about the original grapefruit record. I could post that if it is needed to show that this is not some one time only thing. Just really looking for clarity here on how to judge the importance of Record A vs Record B to a non-fan.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 17:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
If the "world record for growing the largest grapefruit" is not notable, why would you think "person who holds record for growing the largest grapefruit" was notable if their sole source of notability was the grapefruit growing? I'm not understanding your logic.
JMWt (
talk) 17:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Growing a large grapefruit is perhaps notable, Guinness is not. You can pay them and they'll come to certify your record. Being featured in a non-notable book, is not notable.
Oaktree b (
talk) 18:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Can you point me to the ruling on here where Guinness is marked as a non-reputable source or purposely excluded? This would definitely be important for me to know going forward, as would this general world record but not-notable rule that nobody has been able to show me yet.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 18:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I've never claimed it wasn't notable. If you think I should also post information about the previous record holder, I'd be up for it. Is that what you mean?
KatoKungLee (
talk) 17:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
um. I think maybe I need a timeout because now I'm very confused.
JMWt (
talk) 17:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Wait. What? People think that's what makes someone encyclopedic? No. Neither the topic nor the sourcing make this acceptable. DeleteDrmies (
talk) 18:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete please before anyone is tempted to start a run of articles on world-record fruit and veg.
Mccapra (
talk) 19:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Perhaps I'm blind, but I'm failing to see where Onel5969 allegedly failed to assume good faith. I'm also failing to see what Onel should apologize for, given that the discussion was centered around the notability of a specific topic of articles which is entirely appropriate.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 21:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per Fram and others - everything relevant has already been said. --
hroest 20:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per Fram and others - In general, world records about growing vegetables and fruits are not notable for an encyclopedia.
Paul H. (
talk) 01:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge. I can see that these people are notable for one event
WP:BLP1E. But I think that the well-sourced content of the article would make a useful section to add to the article on
grapefruit.--
Toddy1(talk) 12:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge (highly selective). Best mentioned in a short phrase on
grapefruit, without the names of the couple. The proof in the anonymous grapefruit pudding is in the newspaper titles.
gidonb (
talk) 00:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:BLP1E, Guinness World Record aren't inherently notable. Don't see much content worth merging into grapefruit, apart from maybe the one sentence The grapefruit weighed 7 pounds and 14.64 ounces and measured 28.75 inches in circumference.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 16:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, very good. That and some refs. This opinion and all other opinions that support a selective merge should be read as such, which receives priority also as an
WP:ATD.
gidonb (
talk) 18:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)reply
No, it doesn't. The opinion of people believing that this doesn't even warrant a mention at "grapefruit" are just as valid as those preferring a merge, and nothing in
WP:ATD says that merge opinions "receive priority". "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Including trivia into the grapefruit article doesn't improve that article in my opinion and presumably some of the other delete !voters. These are not more or less valid than the opinions of people who believe that this factoid would improve the grapefruit article.
Fram (
talk) 08:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Preserving the edit history should be preferable if at all possible. Even if we're preserving one sentence. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(
work /
talk) 14:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
No, preserving the edit history is not preferable, why would it be? If there would be consensus that nothing here is worth merging, then it is not preferable to keep the edit history, it would serve no purpose. We shouldn't do a merge as a means to keep the edit history, we should keep the edit history if and only if a merge is deemed the best solution. What I dispute is that merges would somehow receive priority over deletion (I've even seen the claim, though I don't remember if it was made by Gidonb, that one good faith merge !vote would automatically overrule all delete !votes).
Fram (
talk) 15:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - pretty clear cut example of
WP:BLP1E. Not opposed for a brief mention at
grapefruit. Not a ton here worth saving though.
Sergecross73msg me 15:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Grapefruit per Toddy1 - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(
work /
talk) 14:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete – not notable for stand alone article.
WP:NOTNEWS applies.
Kierzek (
talk) 14:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as a pretty standard
WP:BLP1E. I don't see any value in a formal merge here either. If there is something to be said at
grapefruit, that can be done independently of this article or AfD process.
KoA (
talk) 20:27, 13 March 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.
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. Consensus is clear. Whether some of this content is added to
grapefruit is a separate question (I note that
Watermelon and
Pumpkin list the largest-recorded instances).
BD2412T 01:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Non-notable couple. We don't consider World Records notable unless there is sourcing that talks about them in detail. Beyond confirming the largeness of the grapefruit, there is nothing about these people. Gsearch goes straight into social media links.
Oaktree b (
talk) 16:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Do we have any proof over the payment claim other than "trust me bro"? Guinness does not list any pay to play fees on their site, though if you pay you can get your application looked at faster -
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/faqsKatoKungLee (
talk) 21:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Your list has two sources, a Fox news piece on them, and a newspaper story. The rest are social medial posts. I wouldn't consider either of the first two sources as substantial. The grapefruit might have a chance at being listed in largest fruit or some sort of article like that, these people aren't notable.
Oaktree b (
talk) 18:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
- @
Fram - They hold two different records - the heaviest and largest grapefruit in circumference. These are separate records, since you can hold one and not the other. The sources in the article mentioned as such. Additionally, the record is still ongoing as is any other record. It could be broken tomorrow, so it's not a one time thing. So it's not really a news thing since the story could completely change tomorrow.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 17:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - clearly not notable. This is the type of filler coverage that is used frequently. A case of
WP:BIO1E (even if it is two completely irrelevant world records, it's still the same topic).
Onel5969TT me 17:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Onel5969 - How can you have two different records but only be notable for one thing? We already [
|discussed this earlier], but can you please link to the notable world records rule?
KatoKungLee (
talk) 17:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - they had 15 minutes of fame and
WP:NOTNEWS.
JMWt (
talk) 17:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think there is much comparison between someone who is famous, briefly, for growing large grapefruit and high scorers in the NBA. For a start, people who have long careers in the NBA are notable as per
WP:NSPORTSJMWt (
talk) 17:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The record is ongoing. It's not a one and done record. It could be broken, correct? I have information about the original grapefruit record. I could post that if it is needed to show that this is not some one time only thing. Just really looking for clarity here on how to judge the importance of Record A vs Record B to a non-fan.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 17:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
If the "world record for growing the largest grapefruit" is not notable, why would you think "person who holds record for growing the largest grapefruit" was notable if their sole source of notability was the grapefruit growing? I'm not understanding your logic.
JMWt (
talk) 17:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Growing a large grapefruit is perhaps notable, Guinness is not. You can pay them and they'll come to certify your record. Being featured in a non-notable book, is not notable.
Oaktree b (
talk) 18:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Can you point me to the ruling on here where Guinness is marked as a non-reputable source or purposely excluded? This would definitely be important for me to know going forward, as would this general world record but not-notable rule that nobody has been able to show me yet.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 18:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I've never claimed it wasn't notable. If you think I should also post information about the previous record holder, I'd be up for it. Is that what you mean?
KatoKungLee (
talk) 17:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
um. I think maybe I need a timeout because now I'm very confused.
JMWt (
talk) 17:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Wait. What? People think that's what makes someone encyclopedic? No. Neither the topic nor the sourcing make this acceptable. DeleteDrmies (
talk) 18:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete please before anyone is tempted to start a run of articles on world-record fruit and veg.
Mccapra (
talk) 19:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Perhaps I'm blind, but I'm failing to see where Onel5969 allegedly failed to assume good faith. I'm also failing to see what Onel should apologize for, given that the discussion was centered around the notability of a specific topic of articles which is entirely appropriate.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 21:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per Fram and others - everything relevant has already been said. --
hroest 20:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per Fram and others - In general, world records about growing vegetables and fruits are not notable for an encyclopedia.
Paul H. (
talk) 01:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge. I can see that these people are notable for one event
WP:BLP1E. But I think that the well-sourced content of the article would make a useful section to add to the article on
grapefruit.--
Toddy1(talk) 12:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge (highly selective). Best mentioned in a short phrase on
grapefruit, without the names of the couple. The proof in the anonymous grapefruit pudding is in the newspaper titles.
gidonb (
talk) 00:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:BLP1E, Guinness World Record aren't inherently notable. Don't see much content worth merging into grapefruit, apart from maybe the one sentence The grapefruit weighed 7 pounds and 14.64 ounces and measured 28.75 inches in circumference.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 16:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, very good. That and some refs. This opinion and all other opinions that support a selective merge should be read as such, which receives priority also as an
WP:ATD.
gidonb (
talk) 18:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)reply
No, it doesn't. The opinion of people believing that this doesn't even warrant a mention at "grapefruit" are just as valid as those preferring a merge, and nothing in
WP:ATD says that merge opinions "receive priority". "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Including trivia into the grapefruit article doesn't improve that article in my opinion and presumably some of the other delete !voters. These are not more or less valid than the opinions of people who believe that this factoid would improve the grapefruit article.
Fram (
talk) 08:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Preserving the edit history should be preferable if at all possible. Even if we're preserving one sentence. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(
work /
talk) 14:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
No, preserving the edit history is not preferable, why would it be? If there would be consensus that nothing here is worth merging, then it is not preferable to keep the edit history, it would serve no purpose. We shouldn't do a merge as a means to keep the edit history, we should keep the edit history if and only if a merge is deemed the best solution. What I dispute is that merges would somehow receive priority over deletion (I've even seen the claim, though I don't remember if it was made by Gidonb, that one good faith merge !vote would automatically overrule all delete !votes).
Fram (
talk) 15:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - pretty clear cut example of
WP:BLP1E. Not opposed for a brief mention at
grapefruit. Not a ton here worth saving though.
Sergecross73msg me 15:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Grapefruit per Toddy1 - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(
work /
talk) 14:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete – not notable for stand alone article.
WP:NOTNEWS applies.
Kierzek (
talk) 14:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as a pretty standard
WP:BLP1E. I don't see any value in a formal merge here either. If there is something to be said at
grapefruit, that can be done independently of this article or AfD process.
KoA (
talk) 20:27, 13 March 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.