Deletion of Phil Robertson ''GQ'' interview controversy

Comment: the nominator has been indef blocked as a , but see others endorse his view, so this AfD should probably continue
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK)

Comment: per continued media coverage and apparently some longer term impact http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/business/media/after-controversy-duck-dynasty-draws-a-smaller-audience.html http://uk.eonline.com/news/503132/duck-dynasty-ratings-fall-by-nearly-2-million-viewers-has-america-had-enough. Can be revisited a year from now, but it seems to pass  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 ). The large amount of politicization surrounding the incident, with numerous political figures commenting on it, certainly makes it non-routine http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/12/19/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-bobby-jindal/4125211/ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/gop-politicians-defend-duck-dynasty-stars-right-to-anti-gay-comments/ http://www.salon.com/2014/01/03/gops_duck_dynasty_problem_why_phil_robertson_was_a_hugely_important_political_story/ http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/sarah-palin-duck-dynasty-defense-101319.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/bobby-jindal-duck-dynasty-101330.html 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 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/17/louisiana-voters-pick-between-two-republicans-to-fill-open-congressional-seat/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508895/Duck-Dynasty-favored-candidate-defeats-Tea-Party-backed-favorite-win-Congress-seat-Louisiana-election.html. The man story/controversy has generated a couple of "spin-offs" of its own, too: one about Robertson's comments about teenage marriage http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-teenage-girls/story?id=21278832 and another about Liam Panyne's #lazyjournos http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/one-directions-liam-payne-upsets-fans-with-praise-for-duck-dynasty-after-homophobia-furore-20140120-3142k.html. Also according to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545514/Duck-Dynastys-viewership-drops-lowest-point-13-months-Phil-Robertsons-anti-gay-interview.html Robertson is now envisaging creating his own media company
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per significant coverage in reliable sources that has occurred over a period of time, which transcends , and as a reasonable  of the Phil Robertson article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:SPINOUT)

Comment: A "spin-off" of this type is simply a  violation ab initio -- and that is a policy issue and not one of "whitewashing" anything
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: The nominator of this AfD was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roccodrift&diff=591194947&oldid=590880567 blocked as a https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire&diff=prev&oldid=591195276 sockpuppet. I recommend a procedural close per : "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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:DISCUSSAFD)

Comment: This is a mess of a  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: It would be UNDUE to merge this to the Duck Dynasty or Phil Robertson articles. This article easily meets  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#GQ section needs condensing). If that section is trimmed, the most sensible route will be to provide a summary there linking to this full article.  doesn't apply here, as this is hardly routine coverage. A close reading of  actually supports keeping this article. The interview and its fallout received coverage that was both  and . 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 http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-duck-dynasty-alabama-lawmaker-20131227,0,5849897.story?track=rss#axzz2pJ12lf2j proposed a resolution supporting Robertson.  is evident as a continual stream of media has addressed this since the interview came out (just a few days ago there was another http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/01/16/source-networks-upset-with-ae-for-caving-on-phil-robertson-duck-dynasty/ Fox News article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT||WP:DIVERSE||WP:INDEPTH||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE)

Comment: per  (recentidism). Fails . Some reality show brouhahah that is well enough covered within the Duck_Dynasty#Phil_Robertson.27s_GQ_Interview|Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson articles. No need for a third separate article to cover the story
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT)

Comment: 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  and , as the coverage of this rather trivial event on here is overblown. Finally,  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: 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 . 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. , and specifically  provide guidance that strongly supports keeping this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:NOTABILITY||WP:CFORK||WP:SPINOFF)