Talk:Question Time George Galloway in Finchley controversy

Notability etc
I'm slightly confused as to why this minor, passing media kerfuffle warrants its own page, let alone one under such an ungainly, confusing and oddly italicised title. Lots of editions of Question Time create "controversy" over the following couple of days over supposed gaffes and purported offence. It's not clear there's anything special about this one that couldn't be covered in two lines on the main Question Time page, Galloway's or both.  N-HH   talk / edits  20:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. Although there are 3.5 mainstream media cites (the .5 is Huffington Post!!), I doubt it passes the general "enduring historical significance" test. It does not seem to pass WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Rwendland (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well there was a definite spike at the time, and I'm sure it is occasionally referred back to, but as you say, this is not lasting coverage or enduring significance; and there shouldn't be standalone pages for every passing political frenzy that is probably better included as sourced content on a parent page. This is perhaps an obvious exception by way of contrast, as it played a large role in the demise of the BNP. I don't think we can say this reaches that level. If I can summon up the effort, I may go for an AfD.  N-HH   talk / edits  07:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any response here from the article's originator and main editor, who has a habit of this sort of thing and seems a bit confused (to be both frank and patronising) about the difference between an encyclopedia and a political blog or piece of loaded commentary, I'll do this asap. Whatever you think of Galloway, you couldn't find a more blatant example of using minor incidents for political point scoring on WP. And it's up against some stiff competition, as the saying has it.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Probably a couple of paragraphs in the main Question Time article would be enough. I included the event in 2015 in British television, and summarised it as follows:

Respect Party MP George Galloway makes a controversial appearance on Question Time during which he is asked a question about the rise in antisemitism in the UK, and whether he bears some responsibility for its increase. Galloway's appearance on the show had been criticised ahead of its broadcast by several individuals and groups, including Times of Israel columnist Alex Klineberg because of Galloway's outspoken views on Israel. Galloway later claims to have been set up, and that chair David Dimbleby apologised to him privately over the tone of the question.


 * Perhaps we can add a bit more detail and then ... Nuff said. This is Paul (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think one should be careful less personal bias means that one is inclined to downplay this incident as much as the reverse might incline some to overstate its significance. Unlike almost all other editions of Question Time, the Nick Griffin debacle probably being the only other exception, this event gained attention ahead of transmission and afterwards. If the limited mentions since this event are to be taken into account, many, many, articles are likely to be subject to deletion. Another television programme which involved George Galloway, Scotland Decides: The Big, Big Debate, has itself only one citation dating from the last 2 years. Galloway's books, most of which seem to have articles, are scarcely mentioned in the media at all now. I do not propose to advocate the deletion of such articles, so the comment is not a threat, and Wikipedia is not about to be whittled down, but zealotry can entice us all. Philip Cross (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting the George Galloway controversy was a small part of Scotland Decides, which was about the wider issue of a debate for first time voters ahead of the referendum. This is Paul (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I was not referring to Galloway's involvement on the 'no' side, in place of someone from the official 'no' campaign, from the Scottish Labour Party, or even from a constituency in Scotland, but a potential sourcing issue for the article. Philip Cross (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems a television programme can be notable, but an event that occurred because of a television programme may not be. Maybe you should have made the episode the subject of the article, but this kind of falls into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory. This is Paul (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure of the relevance of Scotland Decides or about Galloway's books. It should be clear, surely, that the notability and encyclopedic relevance of enduring artefacts (including an actual TV show, even if a one-off) and physical things is not comparable with that of insubstantial "events" or passing media controversies. Nothing that's been said in defence of the page really counters my initial observations that this is something that can be, and already is, much better incorporated briefly elsewhere (in three places, it would now seem) rather than as a standalone article.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)