Talk:Jill Billings

Removal of the section discussing her opponent's attack on her religious activities
I thought it was the most interesting aspect of the race, since usually Democrats are attacked for not being sufficiently active Christians. Comments by others? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this was the interesting part of the race. Since this was cover by the news media the section should be put back in-thank you-RFD (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the campaign, but it is right to removed unsourced content like this especially in light of WP:BLP (for the opponent). If reliable sources are added supporting the paragraph and quotes removed in this diff then it should be restored. A campaign strategy (or an opponents) is encyclopedic and the content appears to have neutral tone.  Royal broil  04:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it received a fair amount of news coverage it would seem to me that it could be included in the article, as it likely played an important role in the election. Of course, it should have a reliable source and be unbiased.Packerfansam (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't unsourced; it was properly sourced to a report in the major local daily newspaper! -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  13:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)