Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve King cantaloupe calves comment 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 delete. With the relevant information already mentioned at Steve King, there's nothing to merge. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Steve King cantaloupe calves comment controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not news. Entry duplicates information in article on Steve King. POV fork. GregJackP  Boomer!   18:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per GregJackP. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a unique story, especially for its WP:effect.  Immigration is a huge issue in American politics and there are multiple commentary how this controversy effects that debate.Casprings (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - "unique story" = news; and it hasn't really had an effect. No legislation has been passed on the matter and at this time it is just a POV fork.  Until it becomes more important and does have an actual effect, it belongs on the Steve King page.   GregJackP   Boomer!   18:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Every bad-taste comment made is not a notable topic for a WP article. The article also did not mention any controversy since nobody seemed to be defending the comments.  A controversy needs two sides. I haven't checked it out but I have a feeling the info is already well-reported in Steve King.Borock (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete with extreme prejudice. Little more than an attempt to attack a living person.  No evidence of long standing controversy.  Arzel (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Keep With an adjustment. Since when does quoting someone's own words constitute attacking them? Especially when they stand by their comments? And there is voluminous "evidence of long standing controversy" regarding King's record of incendiary comments. While I question whether the single event of the cantaloupe comment rises to the level of it's own article, if anything, the article should be renamed: "Steve King comment controversies", so the entire catalog and content of his controversial statements could be found in one place. FYI, I'd define controversial for this purpose as: notable comments that received widespread, reliably sourced, notoriety and/or condemnation, from across the political spectrum. That's not an attack. Since these are well-documented and well-sourced facts, it's an encyclopedic entry. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C0CD:6FDD:5F22:7634 (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C0CD:6FDD:5F22:7634 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC).
 * Comment - so I take it you would not have a similar problem with a similar article on controversial gun control comments by Diane Feinstein or controversial racial comments by Jesse Jackson? It's not appropriate, and violates WP:BLP.   GregJackP   Boomer!   12:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Response - In your rush to make your partisan equivalency, you clearly missed the critical part of my comment where I noted that I defined "controversial" as: "comments that received widespread... notoriety and/or condemnation, from across the political spectrum". Pretty confident you'd have a harder time reaching that standard than you think. King reaches it on a regular basis, much to the disquietude of his own party bosses. Hence the justification for my suggestion in his unique case. But if realistically, or even hypothetically, you'd like to try it with other folks, have at it. Each attempt would be judged on its own individual merits. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:5C7F:CF57:4F5A:39CB (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C0CD:6FDD:5F22:7634 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
 * Comment - Would you have preferred I referenced Sen. Max Baucus' anti-gay ads in 2002? It makes no difference to the matter before us, which is that the material is not suitable for its own article.  We are here to build an encyclopedia, not provide partisan campaign fodder, for either side.   GregJackP   Boomer!   23:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Response - 1) You certainly do appear fundamentally incapable of seeing beyond your own clear partisanship. 2) You're also either unwittingly, or willfully, misstating another losing example. Because Baucus did not run "anti-gay ads": a) There was ONE ad that slammed his opponent's hair care school for defrauding US Dept of Education student loan funds and diverting $159,000 of them to his own personal benefit. b) Unlike King, Baucus did publicly repudiate that ad because of the "beauty salon" innuendo. c) The ad was created and paid for by the DSCC, not the Baucus' campaign. d) Baucus also never made comments regarding the ad that "received notoriety and/or condemnation, from across the political spectrum". So your example fails to reach my threshold on every level. e) Even the fact that you had to reach back 11 years to find your most recent fatally flawed example, only further proves the point. But again, it exposes the sad fact that your interest doesn't appear to extend to getting your facts straight, just in advancing your own transparent partisan politics. That is unfortunate. Or perhaps you did not know all the facts surrounding your example, in which case in fairness, say so. But regarding King, even a cursory and impartial review of his BLP reveals the catalog of his long history of incendiary comments: from the Obama middle name section, to affirmative action, to lobbying, to racial profiling, to Todd Akin's rape comments, to animal fighting, etc. The cantaloupe comment is merely the latest and likely not the last King comment to make headlines. So no article devoted exclusively to his controversial statements - none of which he ever repudiates - would be "campaign fodder". It is simply an encyclopedic catalog of reliably sourced and widely reported facts. Facts that no opposing campaign would, contrary to your assertion, ever need to rely on Wikipedia to obtain. Not when there's Google, Bing, YouTube, the Congressional Record, LexisNexis, in addition to opposition research and the public record. But even so, as an encyclopedia, that is not our concern. Our concern is only reliably sourced and widely reported facts. In response to your prior claim, reliably sourced and widely reported facts never violate BLP policy. Refer you to: WP:PUBLICFIGURE. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:B4AF:4E3E:A87A:B57E (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge Just another minor controversy, perhaps important for King's career, but with no lasting effects on anything else. WP:NOTNEWS. No reason it can't be covered in Steve King's main article (except that it's protected). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested, to Steve King. When and if he runs for higher office, then a proper fork to a new article such as Political positions of Steve King can be created. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be just a POV fork. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The politician and the episode is not important enough for this to merit its own article. Neither do I see a need for a merge as the episode is already included in the Steve King article, and there more articulately written than the prose of this article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:46, 1 August 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.