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). BD2412 T 01:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas and Mary Beth Meyer (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)

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]

• Keep - @Oaktree b - Over 10 sources were posted, so they clearly pass WP:GNG. We really need you to link to this notability rule of world records in your deletion post since you cited it as a rule. We can't take your word for it. If I search them, I find a whole list of news articles - https://www.google.com/search?q=Douglas+and+Mary+Beth+Meyer+grapefruit&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=IWoHZNbDDunY5NoPmoWCyAo&ved=0ahUKEwiW2KaZosr9AhVpLFkFHZqCAKkQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Douglas+and+Mary+Beth+Meyer+grapefruit&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIFCCEQoAEyBQghEKABMgUIIRCgATIFCCEQoAE6CAgAEKIEELADOgUIIRCrAkoECEEYAVDbHFjqKGDTKWgBcAB4AIABgwKIAcoJkgEFNi40LjGYAQCgAQHIAQXAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp. I'm curious as to how OP could not find these while I could. I have to question WP:AGF and WP:GAME due to how different our results were. We also know this couple would be in the Guinness World Records book since they are listed as a record holder. The people are notable since they grew the grapefruit, and the record could not exist without them.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Scroll down to "G". You can pay to be "featured" in it, so having a "record" isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:18, 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]

• Delete, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS. Fram (talk) 16:57, 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: Per nom and Fram. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:16, 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).Onel5969 ^{TT 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]
  • @JMWt - The record is ongoing. It could be broken tomorrow and therefore, they would no longer have the record. What makes that different than the List of National Basketball Association career scoring leaders? KatoKungLee (talk) 17:34, 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:NSPORTS JMWt (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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 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. Delete Drmies (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]

  Too late, this same editor also has Christian Cavaletti, and Jackie Miley, and Harry Sperl, which I'm also probably going to nominate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • • That is completely and totally against Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It goes against Wikipedia:DLS, Wikipedia:Don't attack the nominator and seems to break Wikipedia:DLC and Wikipedia:REVENGE. I think an apology is in store @Onel5969. Nominate any article that you feel there is a problem with. I'm not personally offended. Any nomination should have to do with what is in the article, not with me personally. KatoKungLee (talk) 01:54, 8 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. Sergecross73 msg 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]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Awards. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:53, 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.