Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Kimmel Live! controversy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect—at least, that's the short answer. Long answer? There's definitely consensus against this standing as its own article; however, while the content exists on the parent article, the title remains a likely search term. So this will redirect to Jimmy Kimmel Live! for now. If that section is ever removed, or if more significant controversies are introduced into that article, it may be appropriate to revisit this at RfD. For now, coverage at the parent article appears sufficient such that there's no need for a merge. Since the page history will still be accessible, however, any editors interested in a selective merge may do so without invoking the wrath of the admin gods. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Kimmel Live! controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Silly "controversy" - an article is undue weight to a minor event. Could easily be compressed and summarized in the main article. Beerest355 Talk 16:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355  Talk 16:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Beerest355  Talk 16:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not the news. Pointless content fork of Jimmy Kimmel Live! Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or very, very, very selective merge. No apparent reason this needs its own article, and the title doesn't seem like a useful search term, so no redirect is called for.  But in light of the extensive short-term coverage and the Chinese government commenting on the matter, there ought to be room for a bit more than the single sentence now present at Jimmy Kimmel Live!.  (By "a bit more" I mean a couple more sentences and a couple more footnotes, not a lengthy exegesis.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for now -- if it comes to the point that Kimmel is fired, or the show is canceled because of the incident, it could be important. Also, if this becomes a lasting controversy with the boycott against Disney causing them substantive losses, it would be notable. If, on the other hand, everything blows over next week, deleting--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Crystal applies here. We don't keep articles based upon what might happen in the future.Martin 4 5 1  22:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - had a celebrity or other notable person said this, maybe it would make sense to keep it. But Wikipedia does not need an article on something a random kid said. Lettik (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is literally making a mountain out of a molehill. It merits a paragraph in the show's article, nothing more. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Then vote merge, not delete. Just because this is AFD does not mean you have to feed into the inclusionist/deletionist insanity.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to add a one-paragraph summary of this one to the other one, fine. I wouldn't call it a merge, and this coatrack should be deleted in any case. My !vote doesn't prevent anyone from doing so before the AFD ends. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge as this was originally a split from the article on the show it seems within reason to put it back there, where currently no mention remains. Should it really prove to be of sufficient controversy to warrant its own article we can restore this page easily enough.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete POV content fork for a careless six year old child mistake that deserves one sentence at most. Secret account 00:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:BLP to say the least. This is something nobody is going to remember media-wise years down the road, and this kid's life need not be haunted with the help of WP for something stupid he did as a small child. --MuZemike 00:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons above. Kablammo (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary content fork that is already covered in excruciating detail at the parent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLP; another media circus created by the Disqus/Facebook/HLN grumps that didn't even that much attention before they flagged it out and fanned the flames. Yes, a very stupid comment, but the show isn't going to get canceled because of it. Mountain out of a molehill, indeed.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Just an unnecessary content fork for some mistake someone did as a small child. Steven  D99   Contribs  Sign 05:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Jimmy_Kimmel_Live! it's already there, see Jimmy_Kimmel_Live!. The controversy provoked protests of Chinese Americans, which suggests it is a notable incident, no matter how stupid it is. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Revert the split, remove any BLP-violating garbage, and redirect to Jimmy_Kimmel_Live!. Significant coverage exists, a couple of paragraphs at least are merited. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 16:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - there was no mention of this (that I heard) outside the U.S. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Jamesx12345 20:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's simply untrue. The case has received significantly coverage in China and Hong Kong. The South China Morning Post alone has published multiple articles on the incident: . -Zanhe (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm only referring to what I heard. It completely passed by the UK media, and whilst it could be a diplomatic upset, predicting that it will have any lasting impact seems like speculation. Jamesx12345 18:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Daily Mirror November 12, 2013, page 14: "'Kill Chinese' remark fury."; The Daily Telegraph -- Jreferee (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, this is just the type of thing that the screaming headline tabloid would cover. a story in the Mirror is all the more evidence that its not appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge or weak Keep - notable incident that has received widespread coverage in multiple countries, but may not be enough to justify a standalone article. -Zanhe (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * delete just a blip in the news cycle WP:NOTNEWS; no indication of WP:PERSISTENCE; already covered thoroughly enough in the main article. TheRedPenOfDoom 12:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge The nomination states plainly that this "could easily be compressed and summarized in the main article" and so is arguing for merger, not deletion. This seems to be a significant diplomatic incident which has been reported internationally and which has resulted in a formal protest by the Chinese government.  There is significant tension as China threatens to replace the USA as the dominant world power and even young children seem to have picked up on this.  The issue therefore passes WP:GEOSCOPE. Warden (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * this issue IS already covered in the main article and so a deletion of duplicated content is entirely appropriate option.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - just a blip in the news cycle WP:NOTNEWS. The article topic additionally would need to qualify under spinout from one of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, 80-20 Initiative, American Broadcasting Company, Jimmy Kimmel, but does not. MuZemike BLP point above is clear and direct - "this kid's life need not be haunted with the help of WP for something stupid he did as a small child." Any information that can be merged already is in their respective articles, so there is nothing for the closer to do in this regard. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - The actual phrase uttered, which the media parsed, was "shoot cannon all the way over and kill everyone in China", which sounds more like a six year old than "kill everyone in China". The Kimmel Live Kids Table segment is called a skit, but it is unscripted "Jimmy Kimmel Live is getting a lesson in what happens when a guest goes off script." "Host Jimmy Kimmel, who often uses children on his show for comedic effect on adult issues, asked a group of four children during a non-scripted segment how the United States should pay back the $1.3 trillion it owes to China". The segment was pre-recorded, so Kimmel Live could have cut the segment, but chose to air it. I think it can be covered in the Jimmy Kimmel Live! article (not to the extent it currently is] but I do not see a basis for a Summary style article in view of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Question How many people participated in these marches at the various locations? Was it just a dozen or so people, or did you have thousands?   D r e a m Focus  16:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or extremely selective merge per Arxiloxos. Risker (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Largely per WP:NOTNEWS. Merging is needless at this point as the subject is already covered sufficiently in the parent article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge with Jimmy Kimmel Live Just a blip on the TV show. No TV show, no notability  p  b  p  14:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable incident, meets WP:NEVENT. Some refutation of above delete arguments (quoted):
 * an article is undue weight to a minor event. - WP:UNDUE applies to content balance within an article, not to individual articles. And rightly so: a notable topic, even if it is a tiny part of a much bigger whole still can deserve its own article.
 * Wikipedia does not need an article on something a random kid said. - Not an argument. If what the random kid said is notable and generated a notable controversy, it may need it, instead.
 * POV content fork - What POV?
 * there was no mention of this (that I heard) outside the U.S. - Apart from having been thoroughly invalidated in subsequent comments, it does not matter where something is notable, what matters is notability in general.
 * In general, the event had a serious international impact and sources cover it continuously after it happened, so it is not a mere routine news blip - it meets WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:PERSISTENCE. While calls to a merge are understandable, I feel the incident is significant and notable enough to deserve a full detailed coverage. -- cyclopia speak! 16:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per NOTNEWS, and this barely qualifies even as "news". Little kid said dumb, little-kid-like thing while on silly TV comedy show.  Nobody will give two shits in a few months.  I wouldn't even merge it to the main article as UNDUE. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete does not warrant an article. Bearpatch (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nonsense Mugginsx (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.