Talk:Nick Vallelonga

Controversies section
An IP claiming to be the subject removed a "controversies" section that he correctly states was incorrect in representing a minor issue involving the subject and a tweet. I restored an accurate version of the same text, reduced to one sentence. An entire "controversies" section devoted to that is absurd. The subject's concern is justifiable. Coretheapple (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There's no longer a "controversies" section, which is for the best, but the same IP (probably the subject) removed some text that is properly sourced but over which there is opinion that it is contrary to WP:UNDUE. See this edit. Is this WP:UNDUE? I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other, but I would lean toward keeping it . Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Given this article is small, and that this is an isolated and trivial instance (although reliably sourced), this certainly gives undue weight, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it is more of a BLP issue than an UNDUE weight issue, but let's see how other editors feel about it. With BLPs we have to err in favor of omitting, and thus the controversies section that used to be here had to go. This one is more on the cusp, and I agree it is not a very long article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)