| Revision as of 15:41, 29 July 2013 editColapeninsula (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,324 edits →Steve King cantaloupe calves comment controversy← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:01, 29 July 2013 edit undoBearian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers85,648 edits '''Merge''' as suggested, to Steve King. When and if he runs for higher office, then a proper fork to a new article such as Political positions of Steve King can be created. ~~~~Next edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| :'''Comment''' - so I take it you would not have a similar problem with a similar article on controversial gun control comments by Diane Feinstein or controversial racial comments by Jesse Jackson? It's not appropriate, and violates ]. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 12:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC) | :'''Comment''' - so I take it you would not have a similar problem with a similar article on controversial gun control comments by Diane Feinstein or controversial racial comments by Jesse Jackson? It's not appropriate, and violates ]. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 12:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Merge''' Just another minor controversy, perhaps important for King's career, but with no lasting effects on anything else. ]. No reason it can't be covered in ]'s main article (except that it's protected). --] (]) 15:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | *'''Merge''' Just another minor controversy, perhaps important for King's career, but with no lasting effects on anything else. ]. No reason it can't be covered in ]'s main article (except that it's protected). --] (]) 15:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Merge''' as suggested, to ]. When and if he runs for higher office, then a proper fork to a new article such as ] can be created. ] (]) 18:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:01, 29 July 2013
Steve King cantaloupe calves comment controversy
- Steve King cantaloupe calves comment controversy (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)
Misplaced Pages is not news. Entry duplicates information in article on Steve King. POV fork. GregJackP Boomer! 18:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - Per GregJackP. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This is a unique story, especially for its WP:effect. Immigration is a huge issue in American politics and there are multiple commentary how this controversy effects that debate.Casprings (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - "unique story" = news; and it hasn't really had an effect. No legislation has been passed on the matter and at this time it is just a POV fork. Until it becomes more important and does have an actual effect, it belongs on the Steve King page. GregJackP Boomer! 18:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Every bad-taste comment made is not a notable topic for a WP article. The article also did not mention any controversy since nobody seemed to be defending the comments. A controversy needs two sides. I haven't checked it out but I have a feeling the info is already well-reported in Steve King.Borock (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice. Little more than an attempt to attack a living person. No evidence of long standing controversy. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Keep With an adjustment. Since when does quoting someone's own words constitute attacking them? Especially when they stand by their comments? And there is voluminous "evidence of long standing controversy" regarding King's record of incendiary comments. While I question whether the single event of the cantaloupe comment rises to the level of it's own article, if anything, the article should be renamed: "Steve King comment controversies", so the entire catalog and content of his controversial statements could be found in one place. FYI, I'd define controversial for this purpose as: notable comments that received widespread, reliably sourced, notoriety and/or condemnation, from across the political spectrum. That's not an attack. Since these are well-documented and well-sourced facts, it's an encyclopedic entry. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C0CD:6FDD:5F22:7634 (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - so I take it you would not have a similar problem with a similar article on controversial gun control comments by Diane Feinstein or controversial racial comments by Jesse Jackson? It's not appropriate, and violates WP:BLP. GregJackP Boomer! 12:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Merge Just another minor controversy, perhaps important for King's career, but with no lasting effects on anything else. WP:NOTNEWS. No reason it can't be covered in Steve King's main article (except that it's protected). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Merge as suggested, to Steve King. When and if he runs for higher office, then a proper fork to a new article such as Political positions of Steve King can be created. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)