Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reasonable Adjustment


 * 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. Whether to create a redirect to Reasonable accommodation is up to editors, but this doesn't strike me as an obvious search term for that concept.  Sandstein  10:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Reasonable Adjustment

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Do not believe article meets the verifiability policy or notability/reliable sources guidelines.

Could not find any info on Google Search/Books/News/News archive.

No consensus among editors as to whether this is a real movement, as per page created by Benny Hutchinson, or a fictional one for an exhibition, as per edits from Iocheaira, with no citations for either POV. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Justin Edgar, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - no assertion of notability. More already at Justin Edgar. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure how edits work, so apologies if this is the wrong way to go about this. The artist set up the wikipedia page to promote the exhibiton as real, as per the art piece. The edits done to state it is fictional were done by me and my friends who found proof it was fake, and wanted to be able to inform people so they did not believe it as we initially did. I think there is value in the site staying up claiming it is fake as the advertising for it sponsored on social media was particularly harmful and contained lots of ableist slurs (under the guise of being a real 90's news report - it was not). Once again, I'm not sure how this works but I can send any proof if needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.148.135.75 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, this is helpful context. My interest in this article is also the concern about harm of mis/disinformation. Is the proof you found publicly available from a reliable source (eg. newspaper?). We can't include original research on Wikipedia, and please don't make public any private information, but if we can provide a citation that categorically says something either way that could provide a way forward. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to an interview with Edgar about the project. He talks about creating the Reasonable Adjustment Movement for the purposes of his exhibition around the 16 minute mark. This WP page was a deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking the movement was real, probably, as Roger points out below, to advertise the exhibition. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.87 (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes youtube is not a reliable source and it looks as though the original sources have been deleted by someone, perhaps a prankster? I suggest this is reinstated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benny Hutchinson (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an attempt to abuse WP to advertise an art exhibition. (See below) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete YouTube is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That particular Youtube video is reliable per WP:RSPYT specifically for the artists' own statement that "Reasonable Adjustment" is a fictional topic that he created. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Benny Hutchinson for adding additional sources to the article. Per the above discussion, I've added a 'disputed' template to the page. I've noted on the talk page that I think WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies here. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * those "additional sources" do not actually exist, they are part of the whole fiction. The Youtube video that you reject is literally the artist himself explaining that it is fiction that he made up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Roger - I don't reject the YouTube video, I added it to the article in the first place after it was mentioned above :) I suspect the same as you RE: those additional sources. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the article does not currently say that it is fictional, which the video conclusively proves. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit the article to reflect this but I would really appreciate some help. The Bedford Sentinel is not a newspaper, it is a sculpture. The West London Obsever was a paper that finished in 1957. The Salford Mail simply does not exist. Squitchtweak (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PLEASE do not delete this page - it is vital for showing people that this is fictional. People believe this is real and are distressed about it.


 * I think a simple redirect to reasonable accommodation is sufficient as this article's subject does not come close to even meet the most lenient interpretation of notability. If the exhibition manages to re-open after the current pandemic and then becomes properly notable as a work of art we can reconsider our options. Right now it doesn't even rate a disambiguation link. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair Roger. My concern was the above comment that having something here is "is vital for showing people that this is fictional", and that this does sound valuable. But I know Wikipedia can't debunk every non-notable falsehood! On that basis, redirect. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair Roger. My concern was the above comment that having something here is "is vital for showing people that this is fictional", and that this does sound valuable. But I know Wikipedia can't debunk every non-notable falsehood! On that basis, redirect. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is notable as it's been shown in multiple prominent galleries and caused controversy and noatable hoaxing. There is plenty to be written on it's construction and controversy Squitchtweak (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - some sourcing from ArtsHub Australia, but this does not create notability by itself. A lot of primary sourcing (or what appears to be primary). There are also citations to fake newspapers.. and the article goes on to talk about how those newspapers are fake, citing to the Wikipedia page's own edit history... altogether, very confusing. So, is it a hoax, or is the article about hoax? Either way, I think it fails notability guidelines. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  19:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Add - Per discussion above, a redirect at Reasonable accommodation can be created if it is a reasonable search term, but this page, with caps, serves no independent purpose. And a redirect may come with a retention of the page history, which would not serve a proper purpose. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  20:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.