Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Robertson ''GQ'' interview 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   merge to Phil Robertson. Since nobody else is closing this... most of the !votes are for delete, but realistically should be merge back to the appropriate article(s) simply because of the realistic reason of why it exists in the first place: WP:SPINOFF (whether or not it's believed to be a pov fork or news or whatever, it's still obviously massive and a lot of the content can be scraped back into wherever it came from). Some points raised include: WP:EVENT (counter: might have lasting effects) (counter-counter: but not clearly demonstrated yet); WP:NOT (counter: technically contains multiple news stories and analysis) (counter-counter:...but realistically only two main "parents": 1. criticisms and approvals, 2. the reinstatement by A&E); WP:BLP1E (counter: irrelevant; individual is independently notable outside this event); WP:POVFORK (counter: WP:SPINOFF applies&mdash;it's pretty huge) (counter-counter: can realistically be trimmed down, the article's tiny without it anyway, and realistically this is a substantial portion of the individual's actual coverage in secondary sources, so splitting is still a pov issue); WP:UNDUE if merged (counter: this is, quite duly, a large portion of&mdash;but obviously not the only reason for&mdash;his fame and notability thus far in secondary sources) Misc: A lot of the article's content exists, already, as of this close, at Duck Dynasty. slakr \ talk / 11:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Phil Robertson GQ interview controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is an attempted WP:POVFORK from a section of an existing article. Creation of a separate article was already discussed and rejected by the community. Editors should note that the article's creator is a textbook WP:SPA who has persistently sought to expand the original article section, in some cases repeatedly inserting material that has been removed by several other editors. Creating this article appears to be his way of circumventing the community's consensus. Roccodrift (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: the nominator has been indef blocked as a WP:SOCK, but see others endorse his view, so this AfD should probably continue. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep, despite obvious personal attacks. Several SPA's have indeed been trying to "cleanse" the main article, Duck Dynasty, of anything that doesn't fit in with their POV, all those efforts have been rebuffed until now. There has been no discussion except a few comments that a separate article is called for so the main article is not undue. This is the latest effort by a SPA to remove content on subjects they do not approve. I also think this entire process should be halted if Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire is closed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is not a POV fork because it contains essentially the same POV as the section in the main article that people were complaining was WP:UNDUE. There was no "community consensus"; there were three users who thought the article was not warranted. Even if there was consensus, local consensus cannot override the larger purpose of improving the encyclopedia with notable content. Our inclusion criteria is based on NOTABILITY, which this subject has in spades. WP:CFORK, and specifically WP:SPINOFF provide guidance that strongly supports keeping this article.- MrX 21:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete. User:Roccodrift  has a very good point here that something is amiss.  The material remaining in Duck_Dynasty ought to be substantially reduced in size; it's currently over a thousand words.  Per WP:Summary style, the details can be covered (neutrally) here in this article rather than that one elsewhere.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per User:Carrite, there is a BLP for Phil Robertson, and there is space there for this subject to be covered. As I said above, the material about this subject in Duck_Dynasty ought to be substantially reduced in size; it's currently over a thousand words.  The controversy about Robertson's interview is much more related to him than to his show; he did not make any comments about the sex lives of ducks, for example.  So the logical primary place for this stuff is in the article about Robertson, with a much briefer summary in the article about the TV show than exists there now, and no separate article.  I consider the present article to be a POV fork not of the article about Duck Dynasty, but rather of the Robertson BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As much information as possible has been scrubbed from the BLP article rendering it afoul of NPOV, the BLP is not a good measure of what content is relevant here, unfortunately. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't like what's happening at the Robertson BLP, then you can start an RFC there, or go to a Noticeboard, et cetera. What you can't do is go create another article that says what you wish the BLP said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete A "spin-off" of this type is simply a WP:BLP violation ab initio -- and that is a policy issue and not one of "whitewashing" anything. Collect (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, a spin-off like this is entirely appropriate per WP:SUMMARY in order not to overload the main articles(s) with WP:UNDUE stuff. Compare with Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a mess of a WP:ONEEVENT that has too many BLP issues to detail (especially using cable news pundits and assertions to make said points) and unsourced observations using reports of Facebook likes and using obvious culture points to take the article in a certain direction. Four paragraphs at most is what this can be compacted to.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Robertson is notable for more than one event. After all, he had a TV show prior to this interview.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean the show or the subject, I meant the interview itself.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the guideline section that you linked to is titled "People notable for only one event". Robertson is not notable for only one event.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "do over" I don't know about delete..is there a do over option?... I think a need for an article about the controversy exists.. but this one is contains contradicting sources and missing information in the sources... like in the first paragraph it shows three sources that stated Phil's comments were labeled as anti gay and bigoted.. I did not notice the word bigoted in the sources..correction the third article does use the word bigot.. but mainly to described Robertson and anyone who defended his statements didn't see that word used to characterize his actual remarks... . ah blogs... also the contention that Phil is four years older than Kay is contradicted in one sources via a tweet from her daughter in law that had Kay at one year younger than Phil.. 65 in Dec 2012... the article seems to gloss over the fact that the controversy was instigated by GLAAD.. and lots of other things that make this seem not an attempt to report on the controversy but to black wash it rather than White wash... and as a point of clarity.. in the duck dynasty proposal for a condensing and moving to separate article.. only two opposed.. Mrx and sportfan5000 Nickmxp (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are errors in the article, they should be fixed, especially if they are potentially harmful toward the Phil Robertson. Please provide sources for the novel idea that "the controversy was instigated by GLAAD". As mentioned above, discussion on one article talk page does not limit the creation of new articles, or even the content in other articles.- MrX 01:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources say racist, some say bigoted. Kay's age is a point of some contention but no one is disputing that it was covered as part of the story - that they married when she was young, which is exactly what Phil was advising others to do.

[User:Sportfan5000|Sportfan5000]] (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

-Phil's being 4 years her elder made that controversy... he made the exact same statement in his own book.... and in a recent viral video called I am second... Nickmxp (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

-Source number 34 in this very article states GLAAD 'S condemnation while awaiting response from a&e... http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-anti-gay/ Nickmxp (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That proves that GLAAD was quick to respond, not they they orchestrated anything, we have to shelve all the conspiracy theories, including that this was all a ratings ploy to ensure this reality show would have a strong showing for it's January debut. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

-Conspiracy theory? GLAAD plainly stated "A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.” Nickmxp (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

-Which brings up another point...the timeline of this article is wrong... it reads A&E Suspended Phil, Phil then responds and then GLAAD Issued a statement.. which is completely backwords.. First GLAAD made thier statement then A&E released Phil's statements and at the end of the day A&E released the decision to suspend phil... like i said.. numerous issues in this article ... a do over would be better... Nickmxp (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

--also it is a bit contientious to claim a recording of a sermon where phil basically quoted the end of the first chapter of the book of romans is a controversial past homophobic statement... 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Nickmxp (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The bible lesson aside, and by the wy the bible has been used to discriminate and kill many people, Phil's quotes or statements are still his. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

-I finally got around to reading the BLP section... it reads Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:Neutral point of view (NPOV)Verifiability (V)No original research (NOR)We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may beblocked from editing.Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material

I don't think this article in general meet those guidelines... Nickmxp (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It does actually, we use the sources to state what what Phil said and sources to demonstrate the reactions of his comments. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as a clear BLP violation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just so it's clear to everyone else, what BLP violation, specifically is present? Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I too am wondering how an entire article can be a "clear BLP violation". Usually, content that is unsourced, especially if it is contentious, can violate the BLP policy, but an entire article? How is that possible? Are there even any BLP violations in the article.- MrX 01:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as a fork. This should be, and is, part of the individual's biography. Carrite (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, it's a fork not of the Duck Dynasty article, but rather of the Robertson BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a fork of either, it's an article about a nationally, and internationally reported on controversy, It's a spin-out article from Duck Dynasty to avoid this content from being undue there. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - The nominator of this AfD was blocked as a sockpuppet. I recommend a procedural close per WP:DISCUSSAFD: "Use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions is absolutely forbidden. Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted and the user manipulating consensus with multiple accounts will likely be blocked indefinitely." The discussion should be re-opened legitimately if one of the legitimate participants or another legitimate user desires. -   t  u coxn \ talk 03:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A procedural close would be poor, as several non-sockpuppets have expressed opinions. Strike the socks and move on.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 03:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the appropriate solution would be to discount the nominator's !vote, if there is some indication of "multiple recommendations" here at this AfD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Also consider there are concerns raised here by different editors other than ones raised by the initial poster... BTW according to that discussafd page, it should be noted that I have made contributions to the GQ section on the duck dynasty page... Nickmxp (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Nickmxp (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

WRT "sock" - the evidence for the block was "thin" to put it charitably, and so the nom's vote is not just to be tossed out but weighed by any closer on the strength of the arguments presented. Just as the argument that the bible has been used to discriminate and kill many people should get weighed as a policy-based argument. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that my recommendation was on the strict side but if the editors who !voted against the article desire an AfD that holds up to scrutiny, I still believe that it should be re-opened by someone with a legitimate account. WRT "sock", evidence for or against the nominator's block is not the issue in this discussion; the legitimacy of the article and the AfD procedure is. It would be easy for editors to reiterate their support or propose statements in a new, clean AfD. However, it's understandable if this slightly longer but more legitimate solution does not achieve a consensus of the involved discussants. -   t  u coxn \ talk 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Totally eliminating the OP, we have, at this point, 2 clear Keep !votes, and 5 clear Delete !votes. One of the Keeps is based on a belief that deletion is akin to whitewashing material, but the topic is already covered in other articles, making that a weak policy argument. The second Keep is based on a claim that a subarticle with the "same POV" as another article can not be a "POV fork". Unfortunately, no policy makes a claim of that nature. WP:Content forking does not refer to a "POV fork" as being the sole improper fork. One delete states that the material ought to be covered in the main BLP, which is a reasonable policy argument. The second delete cites WP:BLP as indicating that POV spin-offs violate that policy. The third delete states that the material if given undue weight, and that in four paragraphs in the main article it could be fully treated. This is a content view based on policy. The fourth delete states it is a BLP violation, which is a policy based argument, and in line with other Delete votes. The fifth delete states it is a "fork" which if the meaning is "WP:Content forking" is a guideline based argument. The guideline states Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors. I believe this is a fair reading of the !votes thus far. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I trust your reading as much as Roccodrift's, or whoever they are. There has been a nearly coordinated effort to remove this very embarrassing information from the biography as to render it a NPOV violation. What remains is flailing to get rid of this article by any rational possible but unfortunately it it is a well-covered aspect of American culture, embarrassing as it may be for the Duck Dynasty millionaires. Sorry, Phil"s public comments were not little slip-ups that will simply be forgotten. They were repeated and commented on themselves and had real world consequences. The POV railroad is what it is. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As this article reads it would seem one of those real world consequences is that he caught the ire of Wikipedia... Nickmxp (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Either you are reduced to an ad hom argument or you have one specific !vote you question -- which !vote do I inaptly depict? Accusations that there is a "cabal" of some sort are not only ill-founded, they are generally interpreted as indicating bad faith on the part of the accuser.  And the essay you cite is ... an essay, and one which demonstrates a particularly strong POV that "evil cabals exist on Wikipedia and anyone who disagrees with that is part of an evil cabal."   Cheers -- and steer clear of ad hom attacks on AfD pages - it is not given any weight whatsoever by any closer.  And may even reduce the weight given your position. Collect (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AGF is not a suicide pact. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

* Delete - BLP violation. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   04:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - To be quite honest, I'm not surprised to see sportfan5000 here. I'm glad this discussion has steered clear of any attempt to derail the negators as having a bone to push against equality rights. However, when the discussion at Talk:Duck Dynasty seemed to tread towards condensing the recent event, which still occupies more space in the article than info on the show itself, this article was spun out in an attempt to retain the info. I personally feel this is a BLP violation, as it goes a long way to condemning Phil for his opinions. This also falls under WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, as the coverage of this rather trivial event on here is overblown. Finally, WP:POVFORK lightly applies, as evidenced by the title alone. In this article, I see no evidence of viewpoints that support Phil's comments, however intolerant they may be to some. -  Floydian  τ ¢  04:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This article was specifically created to relieve the main 'Duck Dynasty' article from having too much information. However that doesn't mean we violate NPOV by eliminating the content that we don't like. The sources are in the hundreds here, across the world. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of every source out there. Summarize the content in the Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson article. There is no reason a one-off event like this needs as much coverage as you've given it. Even if this article is kept, it needs to be trimmed severely, and it needs some counter opinions to balance it instead of the abundant trove of condemnation from the LGBT community. -  Floydian  τ ¢  22:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The reporting and commentary is still coming in, so essentially everything has to be looked at again. Fresh opinions are easily available and likely will offer more neutral opinions on the matter and how it has had effect. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No BLP violations have been found despite requests. If there are any please point them out so they can be addressed immediately, which is true for any article. And is not a reason to remove the entire article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * actually there were blp violations in the original version and pov violations..especially the other controversies section.. even you agreed miss Kay's age was contentious... and considering there is strong evidence that the couple is only one year apart rather than four. It was potentially libelous.. the listing of petitioners as anti gay without having a source noting them as anti gay in reference to the topic at hand is a violation of npov... in the lead it stated many sources widely regarded his comments as bigoted but had no source that called his comments bigoted. The original article read more like a critique of Phil Robertson rather than an encyclopedic reference about a controversy Nickmxp (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually no has proven any BLP violations despite repeated conversations about Kay's age. In short there is disagreement how to use available sources, not that it's a point of whether to talk about the issue or not. It wouldn't be an issue with us reporting what reliable sources state. And NPOV goes both ways. It;s not NPOV to pretend all the criticism was only about his comments were anti-gay, most may have been but not all, how to reflect that is open to improvement. And those anti-gay hate groups are documented for being exactly that. Certainly on a controversy subject that centers on anti-gay comments it would be relevant that some of the supporters were, in fact, anti-gay hate groups. Again these are decisions up for discussion on the most NPOV the address the concerns. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think a source that contradicts other reliable sources is not a reliable source.. as for the anti gay label.. there is no consensus that his comments were anti gay..there is a wide consensus that his comments had been labeled as anti gay.. there are also many reports on the petitions that don't label the group as anti gay.. the use of the label here would imply a motive behind Phil's support that was not widely reported on.. that is not a neutral point of view..it would be like noting Dan savage had recently came under controversy for bullying students for their religious beliefs when referencing him as a critic of Phil's statements... although there are plenty of sources to back it up.. the usage here would be to imply a motive for his criticism..... Nickmxp (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's save the minutia discussion for when it's most relevant. Arguing theoretical points isn't helping this discussion. When the time comes to specific phrases and sources then those can be entertained. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When the time comes? These things were already referenced in the original article. As noted here I edited them out to make the article more neutral..and I notified you about those edits... . if you feel that edit was in error then what are you waiting for? Nickmxp (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Save those detailed arguments for when those details are the focus of discussion please. This page is not about delving into Kay's actual age or if she married below the age of consent. That discussion can take place on the article's talk page. Right here and right now is just not the best time as that is not the primary focus nor does that content greatly influence if the article exists or not. We both agree it should be included in some form, the finer points of how it can be included are best left for the article talk page. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is being proposed for deletion.. it would seem that now would be the best time possible to improve it.... Nickmxp (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We will always be improving it, this page is not for delving into specific nuances of what needs to be improved and how. Please use the article talk page for those discussions. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I was recently informed that editing articles proposed for deletion is kosher... if the main premise is content based ...cant we just edit it to make it better? I got bold and made an attempt.. of course if this action is not warranted .. please feel free to revert... I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be with wikipedia norms...Nickmxp (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC) After reading the notability section, one could argue this controversy had an impact on the media practice of reprimanding popular figures that advocacy groups condemn.... the reversal of the decision in my humble opinion is pretty unprecedented...Nickmxp (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per recentism and undue weight. The controversy has two paragraphs in Phil Robertson, which seems about right. StAnselm (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * These concerns have already been addressed. These events are still generating media coverage and are being used to compare to the new season of the show which just started this week. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS.  Mini  apolis  23:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I feel the article fails the above guideline and policy is that there hasn't (yet, and while I have no crystal ball I don't think there will be) been the duration of coverage required by both.  Mini  apolis  14:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the general standard of duration? A month after the suspension and articles are still being written... right now they are determining what impact the controversy had on the show.. apparently some say negative because the season premire didn't match the last season and some say positive considering the shows ratings where higher than before the controversy started... I was looking at this controversy on the same lines as the chic fil a controversy..my frame of thinking was if I was to write an essay on say conservative buycotts... this controversy would be referenced in that essay.. I could be wrong about it being notable enough for Wikipedia but thought I should at least explain my rationale in order to find the flaw for future reference with other articles..but if anything I would say this article and the section in the duck dynasty article has been a pretty good learning experience for me and I'd like to thank everyone for their patience. Nickmxp (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC) This isn't the only topic my account is for... it's just the one that tends to have the most responses too...Nickmxp (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Nickmxp (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It would be UNDUE to merge this to the Duck Dynasty or Phil Robertson articles. This article easily meets WP:GNG through extensive national and international coverage. Every major news outlet in the U.S. covered this. It should be noted that the scope of the article is not just about the interview, but Robertson's suspension from Duck Dynasty, the campaign by fans to restore him, and his ultimate vindication when he was returned to the show. Both his anti-gay and his racial segregation comments earned distinct coverage. This series of events is the subject of a lengthy section on the Duck Dynasty page and a discussion on the talk page over trimming that section is ongoing (Talk:Duck Dynasty). If that section is trimmed, the most sensible route will be to provide a summary there linking to this full article. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here, as this is hardly routine coverage. A close reading of WP:EVENT actually supports keeping this article. The interview and its fallout received coverage that was both WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH. Individual news sources have covered many of the various facets of this, including the threatened boycott of Cracker Barrel after they pulled DD products from their shelves. The Governor of Louisiana has weighed in on this and a politician even proposed a resolution supporting Robertson. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is evident as a continual stream of media has addressed this since the interview came out (just a few days ago there was another Fox News article). Gobōnobō  + c 16:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per continued media coverage and apparently some longer term impact . Can be revisited a year from now, but it seems to pass WP:EVENT and whatever NPOV/BLP violations some saw can be fixed through editing (and let's be frank some complaints above were stated in such vague terms that are probably just WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The large amount of politicization surrounding the incident, with numerous political figures commenting on it, certainly makes it non-routine      and too unwieldy for the parent article(s) alone. And you can't say Robertson is an unfortunate victim of this politicization, because Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson personally has overtly involved itself in the political battle well before this incident . The man story/controversy has generated a couple of "spin-offs" of its own, too: one about Robertson's comments about teenage marriage  and another about Liam Panyne's #lazyjournos . Also according to  Robertson is now envisaging creating his own media company. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Robertson's own article. POV forking is not an approved method of resolving content disputes and additionally Wikipedia isn't the news. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To avoid being undue in the main article this is from, Duck Dynasty, this is a WP:SPINOFF article in an effort to replace that long section with a summary developed here. This is a common practice. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * delete I originally thought a spin off article was a good idea but given that I've already made a mass edit with no reversion and an insistance that I use the talk page to discuss the details of revisions that have yet to happen... I'm inclined to believe this article will become a point of view fork in a very short amount of time.. Nickmxp (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — Nickmxp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's not a fair representation of the conversation we had. I said any interested editors can discuss issues with the article but it was better to do so on the article talk page. That is reason to clean-up an article, not to delete it. And any article can potentially become problematic, you seem concerned that no one is questioning your edits right now? That just doesn't make sense. All articles are continually updated. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My concern is that you mentioned problems with the article... made most of the edits before my edit and then stopped editing...that even after a 3 day page lock for edit warring have been still trying to include an SPLC label in the Duck Dynasty article that has been the subject of mass debate, that has been removed here without any question...as it seems you have taken to viewing my contributions and oddly deducting that I have a single purpose account... I took the liberty of checking yours and it seems like you have made few or no edits outside of LBGT topics... I initiated our conversation to eleviate concerns that after this discussion was closed the article wouldn't go back to the state that raised initial concerns...and I will gladly change my vote with your assurance that any challenged reversions or additions you may make on the article be undone until a consensus regarding the challenge is reached in the talk section... I think you made some great additions to the topic but the nuetrality of some of those additions have become a center of beauracratic endeavours... some of which have yet been resolved since i started my wikipedia experience..
 * Update: Another page protection has been put into place over the GQ section in the Duck Dynasty article...sigh... Nickmxp (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, that is a regular editing decision, not a reason to delete an entire article. Please use the talk page of the appropriate article to register your concerns. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This is exactly the kind of disproportionate spin-off article that NOT NEWS is designed to eliminate. WP is not a tabloid--this is straight tabloid contents, and not encyclopedic. &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Very little encyclopedic value here. This is a bloated tabloid piece that moves further and further away from being an encyclopedia article everyday. -- John Reaves 20:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You and DGG (right above) may be right that there is no longer any great distinction between US politics topics and tabloid topics, but that's not Wikipedia's fault. The large amount of political commentary and involvement of political figures in aforementioned commentary surely make this incident a political football, but that's not the same as tabloid topics about boobs flashing or women hiding/showing their "bump". I can even find sources (on both sides of the debate!) explicitly calling it political football , if you don't want to take my word for it. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 21:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)



Note: at this point there are 4 Keeps and 12 Delete !votes. Collect (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisting admin note: AFD discussions are not closed based on a numerical tally, but are closed based on the strength of arguments. Given that there were very strong arguments on both sides, the only reasonable course of action was to relist this debate to allow more members of the community to voice their concerns. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There is too much of this in the main article, it needs to be put somewhere. There is no way to get rid of it, and it doesn't fit in the main article, so best to have it somewhere else.  Massive amounts of long term coverage of it, with lasting effects, so it passes GNG just fine on its own.   D r e a m Focus  23:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Phil Robertson . Northamerica1000(talk) 00:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That would create an Undue issue at that article, that's the reason to spin this off the main Duck Dynasty article is to avoid being Undue. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources that has occurred over a period of time, which transcends WP:BLP1E, and as a reasonable WP:SPINOUT of the Phil Robertson article. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fork, BLP, media feeding frenzy of the week (not news). One "keep" voter said  "There has been a nearly coordinated effort to remove this very embarrassing information from the biography", which suggests that editor wishes to keep embarrassing information in Wikipedia about a living person.  I won't hazard a guess as to why someone would want to do that, but besides being a dickhead thing to do, it completly contravenes the BLP policy.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * December 18, 2013 is when it all started, and Google news search shows the coverage continued for over a month. So its a legitimate controversy to cover. Category:2013 controversies   D r e a m Focus  10:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * BLP is not a free pass to rewrite history, Phil's biography rises to the mythological in recounting these same events. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you're list as the creator of this page I suggest you read WP:POVFORK and re-evaluate your statement...Nickmxp (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What is reported in the Phil Robertson article violates NPOV, it's as if he wrote it himself. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * keep -- the coverage in reliable sources has been more than sufficient to justify a conclusion of notability. The other arguments about "embarrassing" or "POV" are neither here nor there in the discussions we're meant to be having at AfD.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here are a few quotes arguing why the story is important (on a political level):
 * "Phil Robertson’s comments about gay and black people and social welfare — and the way they pierced public consciousness — explain more about our country’s political culture than almost anything else that happened all year."
 * "Some prominent conservatives rushed to Robertson's defense Thursday -- not to vouch for the substance of his statement, but for his right to free speech, illustrating how the debate has become a focal point in the political realm, too."
 * "his remarks reflect the views of an American cultural subset the GOP depends on for its survival. His suspension made him a tribune of modern conservatism."
 * These are obviously from opinion pieces because the ethics of news reporting prevent such commentary in news pieces, but they can't be simply dismissed because of that. You can bet such commentary on the event will make it into the academic political science publications, but those have a longer publication cycle (one month is too short to expect such coverage already.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Finally, from a different angle, no short quote from would do it justice, but the whole piece argues that the event should be a wake-up call for the entertainment biz targeting a faith-based audience. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I tend to be cautions of violating NOTNEWS, but this seems well referenced. Incident appears notable. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (recentidism). Fails WP:EVENT. Some reality show brouhahah that is well enough covered within the Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson articles. No need for a third separate article to cover the story. Iselilja (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The event has already been white-washed in the biography article, Phil comes off as a preaching hero, and efforts have been underway by the nominator and SPAs to do the same on the show article. There eis plenty here to justify a stand alone article without the content being undue in either of the others. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 'keep I usuall y avoid this type of article, but given the impasse, I took a look. Somewhat to my surprise, the incident does in fact seem notable enough for its own article; the current version is NPOV, and indicate s the general cultural impact. This is more than transient news.

I say delete. It wasn't culturally relevent - it only got attention because it was a top-rated show. The article also fails to include support for Phil from the gay community. Sparking the debate that some gay activists were intolerant of opposing views. This entire incident was nothing put POV. Nothing relevent came from it and no changes to anything were made. Making it completely irrelevant except for agenda driven reporting.[It didn't even capture the top story of the networks.[Special:Contributions/76.4.110.65|76.4.110.65]] (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2014 (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.