Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Robertson controversies


 * 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   --  keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Pat Robertson controversies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This BLP is nought but an attack page, never have i seen so much negative content in one article. It ought to be deleted and some of the content moved into the main Pat Robertson article mark nutley (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is just a load of attacking tabloid trash and would be better deleted. There is already a more than fat enough controversy section in the main. Such as this is what makes wikipedia a laughing stock. Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Keep, unless you want to delete everyone else's controversy articles. Czolgolz (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - How is the article not just presenting stuff that he's gotten in trouble for? WP:BLP states "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" (emphasis mine). For attack pages it says "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which may disparage the subject, should be deleted," (emphasis mine, the article neutrally reports the negative reactions Robertson has gotten, with reliable secondary sources). WP:NPOV and WP:BLP do not require, insist, or even support us kissing any article subject's butt. The article simply reports that much of the media has disapproved of much of Pat Robertson's behavior, and presents individual cases as examples. The only reason to remove this page would be to give equal validity for his supporters, which isn't something that we're required to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the material seems to be both accurate and adequately sourced. Cactus Wren (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a sub-page attached to Pat Robertson, designed to keep the main article from becoming overlong and unreadable. This is a very well sourced treatment of the numerous controversies associated with the noted televangelist over the years. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment per the nomination: The reason there is "so much negative content" in this article is that it is the expanded, full content, version of the "Controversy" section of the Pat Robertson biographical article. Carrite (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is sourced and does not appear to have any WP:POV issues. To merge this to the main article would cause the main article to be too large and is quite acceptable on its own. Pmedema (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carrite, WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Presenting these attacks in isolation is contrary to core policy. Without the full context, the presentation is one-sided contrary to WP:UNDUE and this is unacceptable in a BLP. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is properly sourced and cannot be seen as a slam job. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because the article says negative things about the subject does not make it an attack page. The important thing is whether sources are provided about those negative things, which they clearly are in this article. Edward321 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not even saying negative things, it's neutrally reporting that Pat Robertson has said and done things which were not well received. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The alternative would be lack of balance on the main page Vartanza (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carrite. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 17:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Criticism/controversy articles of WP:BLP subjects should be avoided. Work any noable criticism into the body of the main article; if cries of "it's too long!" come up, then that is probably a sign that undue weight is being given to the criticism.  This is an encyclopedia, not a laundry list of every single occurrence of someone objecting to something that Pat Robertson said or did. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm no fan of Pat Robertson, and I certainly agree that controversies about him which are well documented should be covered in Wikipedia - but not in a separate article devoted to criticizing him. A lot of this stuff already exists at the page Pat Robertson. What isn't already there should be added, and then this article should be deleted without a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete and merge I think this is a WP:POVFORK. It is probably not a good idea to have an article that only shows negative aspect of someone's life. Any useful info here should be summarized and merge to the main article.— Chris! c / t 04:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is clearly not a POV fork. It is a full length article on Robertson's voluminous list of controversies attached to the Pat Robertson main article to keep it from becoming overlong. It actually has the effect of neutralizing the tone of the main article, believe it or not... Carrite (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It is not a "POV fork." The material is well sourced and encyclopedic, and fully in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It should not be merged to Robertson's bio article, because it is already there in summary form. Controversial statements by Robertson need a separate article because they are too numerous to be fully covered in the bio article. Edison (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but Nazi war crimes is obviously just a POV fork to make Nazism. Seriously, there is nothing in the NPOV guidelines saying we have to kiss Robertson's ass and ignore all the reliably sourced reactions to him just because the reactions were negative.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not an attack page. Its tone is predominantly neutral and appropriately encyclopedic. It is clearly well-sourced. Lingering questions of tone can be adequately addressed on the article's talk page, as needed. The article needs to exist for technical reasons -- there is too much content here to sit in the Pat Robertson article and, as such, a separate article is warranted. At the same time, the controversies listed are notable and verifiable, and have been the subject of non-trivial coverage in, as far as I can tell, every single instance. That's not undue weight, that's very warranted weight. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The guy is controversial, and his own contoversey page is needed, well sourced and fairly neutral. No issues here with me.--MrRadioGuy P T C E 11:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks pretty neutral to me, and is well sourced. After all, there are controversy pages for many other individuals as well, so why not for this one? DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- Seems like a reasonable topic for an article, as long as its kept well sourced and tone-neutral, I don't see a problem.Umbralcorax (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This was an easy call — why is it being held over for a second week?!?!? Carrite (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (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.