Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Views expressed by James Edwards and The Political Cesspool


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Views expressed by James Edwards and The Political Cesspool

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is nothing more than a POV fork of James Edwards and The Political Cesspool. Unit Anode  01:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. This article is absolutely not a POV fork; it is actually a legitimate spinout of those articles. See here for more information

"Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork."

"Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking." Stonemason89 (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This radio show just barely passes our notability threshold. We already have an article about the show, and its only claim to notability is the racist ideology it espouses. We do not need a separate article about the racist ideology these guys espouse.  AniMate   19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All the content in here is properly sourced, though. I don't think just hacking it out is the proper option. Personally I think the page should remain, but maybe we could compromise by merge-ing this page into James Edwards, The Political Cesspool, or perhaps both? That would be better than just nuking it, since the content itself is legit, even if the idea of having a separate page for it might not be (to some users, anyway). Stonemason89 (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The article itself is a BLP cesspool, and there's no earthly reason for it (or its extensive coverage of non-notable views) within a BLP-related article. Unit  Anode  04:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you denying that James Edwards holds the views listed here? If not, what specifically in the article are you objecting to on the basis of BLP grounds? Stonemason89 (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm done discussing this. Not everything that is verifiable merits an article. It seems that you're much more interested in documenting this guy's views than anything else. This project is not intended as a watchdog over every extremist with a radio program, sorry. The man and the radio program are of very dubious notability to begin with, so it's really impossible to defend having an entire article that's nothing more than a laundry list of the the guy's views on various matters. Unit  Anode  14:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, without encyclopedic merit. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article seems to be the result of a one-man crusade to document the racist views of James Edwards.  Don't get me wrong, I think it was done in good faith, but I also think the editor responsible for this cycle of articles may have an overblown estimation of the notability of the things involved.  I see no signs that the views expressed by this host on his show are of such distinct notability from the host and the show themselves that a separate article could conceivably be warranted.  NOT, and a catalogue of a Millington, Tennessee radio host's views on everything from Barack Obama to The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants is a pretty severe case of indiscriminate compilation.  This should be deleted, or at second best merged back into The Political Cesspool and/or James Edwards.  If Stonemason's complaint is that it's too much material to pack into those already-lengthy articles, well, he has only himself to blame for that state of affairs.    Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 07:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This radio program is barely notable, and this article appears to be little more than an indiscriminate collection of views expressed on that show. If he's like every other radio show, he expresses dozens of opinions every single show, so there's no chance of this ever being complete- so which opinions to document and which to ignore are hopelessly POV.  Citations are not a guarantee of neutrality in a BLP (or any article, to be honest, but it's more important in BLPs)- and this article is either going to be book-length or POV. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a valid split from the aforementioned articles.  Some of this may be worthwhile for a brief mention in the parent articles, but this seems like an invalid workaround to get stuff to "stick" at Wikipedia since it wouldn't stick in the main article.  -- Jayron  32  21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Jayron32's assessment.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 12 January 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.