Talk:Mass media coverage of Alan Grayson's comments on the Republican's health care plan

This article was created by a user who appears to desire to keep any non-GOP criticism of Alan Grayson from his page. This should be merged into the Grayson article. Trilemma (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This article contains punditry that simply was not relevent or notable. Official statements have weight, punditry does not unless another source shows that it is important. Out of three types of news:

The punditry is hardly notable and does nothing to improve the article. If you show a concrete and WP:V fact around Grayson and response, such as a scientific poll, campaign contributions, or serious study of the accuracy of Grayson's opinions, then this is notable in the main article.Scientus (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Primary news and statements by officials
 * Analysis and study
 * Punditry (i.e. unscientific and unofficial statements focused on creating news and controversy)
 * Also, this is an abuse of WP:CSDScientus (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that this article does not meet the criteria for WP:CSD, and have removed the template accordingly, but I also agree with the nominator that any relevant and verifiable content should be merged into the Alan Grayson article; this title is begging for an AFD nomination otherwise. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have placed an updated, non-speedy delete tag per your recommendation. This page is the latest in the continual absurd and aggressive behavior by editor Scientus on the Grayson page. Trilemma (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what to recommend. If you're correct then there's a process that ratchets up.  Their article edits will be rejected, their POV fork articles will be deleted.  If it continues they'll get less and less credibility, and eventually, a possible topic ban.  But meanwhile, I don't think it's helpful to criticize an editor so harshly because that slows down and interferes with the normal content process of simply deciding that the article is non-notable.  We don't have to know who created it to see that.  Again, that's if you're correct.  I don't really feel like looking for myself to see whether I agree about the editor.  That's not relevant.  I do agree that this looks like a POV-fork, and even if not, it's not a viable object subject and ought to be refined and any usable content merged with something else.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this article being deleted. I created this article to put punditry that did contribute to, did not add information, unnecessarily brings up controversy, is not from a official or important source, and is not really that notable, from the Alan Grayson article. If I just removed it I suspected Trilemma would attack me. If this article is notable, then the content is notable here, but not at Alan Grayson. It is not a POV fork.Scientus (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe not a POV fork then, but a content fork of some kind. It would certainly have a WP:WEIGHT issue at the Alan Grayson article, although a short mention is okay.  It may be notable on its own, but this is not really the best way to organize it.  Surely there is an article about the health bill.  Maybe sub-articles too, but I wouldn't think that devoting an entire article to one politician's actions in connection with the bill is a good way to go, it's so arbitrary.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, even though it looks to me like it ought to be deleted, I'm not 100% sure and I was a little uncomfortable with a WP:PROD. I think it's fine to reject that and ask that it be nominated for deletion instead.  Everyone, please do remember to be kind during deletion debates.  Have a good weekend...  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)