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 no consensus. Numerically, opinion is divided, and as regards policies and guidelines, the main issue here does not seem to be notability in a technical sense, but whether this is a useful spinout article per WP:SS. About that, people can in good faith disagree. Sandstein 19:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greta Thunberg speeches[edit]

List of Greta Thunberg speeches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

 The article isn't a list, so I've moved it to Speeches of Greta Thunberg. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this is not a "list of notable speeches". In fact, none of these are notable. Gettysburg Address is a notable speech. We shall fight on the beaches is a notable speech. These are just speeches, and some of them aren't clearly really even speeches.

Much of the content isn't about speeches at all. All of two sentences of the September 27, 2019 section is actually about the speech. The remainder is trivia about who she borrowed her car from and what questions reporters asked her during a press conference. The same can be said for much of the article. Trivia about what happened before and after speeches. Trivia about panel talks and press conferences that aren't speeches.

What content is directly about these speeches, the lion's share could be removed and added to Wikiquote, as fully half the article is just a random collection of quotations.

The only bit of the whole article I can see that is actually about the broader significance of any of the actual speeches is exactly one sentence about Peter Singer. The reason presumably being because these are not notable speeches, and if you take out inappropriate off-topic content, and the random collections of quotes, there is little to nothing to actually say about the speeches other than the fact that they occurred. GMG^talk 15:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial agree. The speeches are certainly notable to the point where several have becomes memes and get responses from world leaders. However, the list is certainly not a list, does contain a lot of irrelevant information and often does not include the speech itself. If this can be made into a compliant list very rapidly I would vote to retain it. If not, then delete. I am not intending to work on it myself, so if nobody heeds the call in the nexr very few days, maybe it should go. I think it came into being as a split. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, from what I can tell, a bunch of tangentially related loosely compiled content was taken from the main article and moved here, when it should have been removed from the main article and (what parts are actually on-topic) added to Wikiquote instead. GMG^talk 16:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thunberg's speeches are not "tangentially related" to the subject addressed by the main article, the Greta Thunberg article. This is a supplemental article. Thunberg is a speaker. Thunberg's influence derives from the capacity to verbally deliver forceful messages. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thunberg is primarily noted as a speaker. That is distinct from a climate scientist, a point she clearly makes. Thunberg's speaking style is also exceptionally distinct. I think it can be safely said that no one in the spotlight speaks quite like Thunberg. At the risk of treading on WP:indiscriminate I think a collection of Thunberg's speeches in one place is a useful resource. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL. Otherwise, the relevance of the remainder is unclear. We do not keep or delete articles based on our personal opinions of whether someone is eloquent. If there are useful quotes, they should go on Wikiquote. If/when the speeches are free in their entirety, they should go on Wikisource. Neither of these are encyclopedia articles. GMG^talk 16:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to an exceptionally distinct speaking style—I didn't say Thunberg was "eloquent". Thunberg is primarily a speaker. Thunberg's influence may wane over time—future speeches given by Thunberg may fail to be as influential as those that have already taken place. But undeniably the verbal exhortations already given have been exceptionally consequential. We are not going to enumerate them in the main article therefore it makes sense to have a supplemental article. Bus stop (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, then there should be information we can add to the article directly about the impact of the speeches themselves, rather than tangentially related information about subjects other than the speeches. GMG^talk 18:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reader is benefitted by having a resource of speeches spanning these brief few years. It is axiomatic that the speeches have been impactful. What is questionable is whether this article should continue to compile Thunberg's speeches indefinitely. The speeches compiled here are the reason for Thunberg's notability. Perhaps this material should be re-added to the main article, but either way, they are important supplemental information. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is Wikipedia. We work with sources, not axioms. GMG^talk 18:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. I did not present any axiom. But let me try that again. The speeches are the bedrock of notability in this biography. I hope you are not going to say we don't do bedrocks here. "Axiomatic" is a manner of speaking. There are no literal axioms involved. Nor were any axioms harmed in developing this product. Rest assured we have the utmost respect for axioms and treat them with delicateness and all-around general respectability. Please see "Colin the Chicken, Portlandia". Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you. GMG^talk 18:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this might be includable in the article on Thunberg, it is not worth creating a seperate article about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "it is not worth" Is there a price tag associated with having "a seperate article"? Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep and move I'm moving the article to "Speeches of Greta Thunberg", as everybody here seems to agree this is not a list. Thunberg is one of our most-read articles (top 100 last year), indicating she is very notable. Also, most of the sources indicate her speeches and talks are the reason she is notable. I have readded various parts of speeches back into the main article recently. I think I initially voted against the split from the article, but given her speeches are the basis of numerous memes, musical performances and so, I now believe they are notable on their own. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, the issue at hand is not whether Thunberg is notable, or whether her public speaking is what made her notable, but whether her speeches are themselves independently notable, a thing which is not inherited from her person. GMG^talk 20:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This information could be kept in the main article but why should it? More space is available in a separate article. I think a brief listing could be included in the main article with a note linking to the more expansive treatment found in this article. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the issue at hand is not Greta's notability. I mentioned it because to me it is a bit of a prerequisite for subarticles that the main article is highly notable. Her speeches an sich are notable in my opinion because they are A) themselves extensively covered in media B) fractions of it are abundantly used in memes and C) they are visible in popular culture, for instance in musical renditions by Fatboy Slim and Björk. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - enough worship already! Is relevantly & sufficiently covered in the "good article" about her (the celebration is huge, so I've heard!). Her campaign for climate worry is notable, her adequate wordings not so. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SergeWoodzing—you write "Her campaign for climate worry is notable, her adequate wordings not so." Aren't these two things one and the same? I don't know how you separate her "campaign for climate worry" from her "adequate wordings". Aren't they one and the same? Bus stop (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment, except that it would be nice to give an opinion just once without (someone) starting a lengthy argument. To whomever does not understand what I wrote: sorry, that's all your getting here from me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is "sufficiently covered" in the other article? I just looked. The speeches are not sufficiently covered in any other article. QuackGuru (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Thunberg is one of the most well-known living individuals on the planet, yes, but that doesn't therefore mean that every particular action undertaken in her social campaign is notable. Historical figures notable for their oratorical skills don't typically have articles in this style. I'm not aware of even one. There's no 'Speeches by John F. Kennedy' or 'Speeches by Abraham Lincoln'. As stated above, notability for specific talks depends on the context and can't be said to simply be inherited by the speaker's high profile. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @CoffeeWithMarkets: Just as a point of order, we do actually have some articles similar to this, such as Speeches of Barack Obama. The difference there is that there are a dozen or more speeches by Obama that are notable in their own right and have enough content that can be written to justify stand alone articles. GMG^talk 20:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. While this does complicate things, I do still think, as you're getting at, this is an unnecessary article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable topic and she is widely known for her speeches. Not enough room in the main article to cover the speeches. QuackGuru (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most speeches are not notable, speaking generically here. She came to fame as a result of the UN speech so if there is one article to be had its that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.6.25 (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC) — 123.243.6.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment I think the fact that we lack a seperate article on the speeches of Abraham Lincoln speaks for itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Lyceum address (1838) Peoria speech (1854) "Lost Speech" (1856) House Divided speech (1858) Lincoln-Douglas debates (1858) Cooper Union Address (1860) Farewell Address (1861) First inaugural address (1861) Gettysburg Address (1863) (event) Second inaugural address (1865) QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At least until all the speeches are covered by Wikiquote and Wikisource. Surely this issue/individual is too important for material to be arbitrarily deleted just because it doesn't fit with traditional WP procedures.PeterWD (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per QuackGuru. --kingboyk (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She gets ample coverage around the world for her speeches. This is a valid spin-off article. Dream Focus 15:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and endorse CoffeeWithMarkets' proposal to create a Speeches of Abraham Lincoln page, too. These are reasonable spin-off pages for notable orators. Pburka (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the arguments so far -- she is known for her speeches, and the press provides significant and substantial coverage of her presence at events. Sadads (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2020 (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.