Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Kincannon

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Kincannon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel that, despite the NUMBER of sources, this does not meet WP:BLP standards for notability. the subject seems to be of only local notability. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's not of "local notability" in that he made national news with his extremely crude and sexist remarks about Texas senatorial candidate Wendy Davis ("It proves that you can still call a whore a whore"; "Wendy Davis stimulates the kneepad economy"). He's sort of a national champion of American misogyny. Chisme (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and that falls under WP:BLP1E, assuming that there are not other major things he's been involved with. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that Kincannon's most important formal position, as former executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party, was deleted from the article (with an inaccurate edit summary) in January. [1] His name does come up in other contexts, including his Twitter attacks on Trayvon Martin [2][3][4][5] and his activities in opposition to expanded voting stations [6][7]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored that to the article. Chisme (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - besides passing bare notability, he easily passes my strict standards for lawyers: Order of the Barristers, officer of a statewide committee of a major political party, elections commissioner, expert in an area of law, etc. WP:BLP1E does not apply, because he has repeatedly made controversial statements in public. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think there is a BLP issue that disqualifies Kincannon from having an article. James500 (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There very much is a BLP issue here, actually. When I looked at the article a few minutes ago, the exact wording of its introduction was Todd Kincannon is misogynistic, rude and arrogant. It's no wonder that the GOP has problems trying to appeal to women and minorities when this hateful man is what they have to offer. He is married to a woman ("Ashely" [yes, that's apparently how it is spelt]) who is evidently blinded against her own husbands deep hatred of women, or as he would refer to them, "whores". Kincannon is also under the impression that he is "unbeatable" and that he "owns the media". — a blatant WP:NPOV violation no matter how unsavory his comments may have been. I've put it under "pending changes" protection for the time being. There's probably a good argument to be made that the media coverage that he's generated for making explosively controversial comments is enough to put him over the wikinotability bar even if the actual offices he's held don't do so by themselves, but we still have to monitor the article to ensure that it remains compliant with NPOV and doesn't lapse into opinion commentary about what a horrible human being he is. Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That text was not in the article when I read it. I have reworded my comments so that they hopefully can't be misunderstood.The last time I checked our policy was that we do not delete articles just because they attract vandalism and soapboxing. We have other ways to deal with that. If need be the page could be fully protected. James500 (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For reasons already stated above. Klortho (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Kincannon is back in the news today, pontificating on the subject of the 2014 Isla Vista killings. As reported by Time magazine online: "I'm sorry a liberal shot some innocent people in a Blue State. Learn to defend yourselves instead of taking guns from law-abiding citizens" and "Dear Liberals: Threatening to kill me and rape my wife every five minutes is not a very good way to get me on board with gun control." As reported by Forward Progressives (a blog): "No idea how my son will die, but I know it won’t be cowering like a bitch at UC Santa Barbara. Any son of mine would have been shooting back." 16:05, 27 May 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.