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 redirect to Ted Cruz. Consensus is that this shouldn't be a standalone article. I'm redirecting instead of deleting only because several people advocate a merger. Redirecting allows merging any useful content from the history, subject to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  17:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Ted Cruz In Defense of Christians controversy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

While the event that is the subject of this article has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, the event occurred on 10 September 2014, and I am of the opinion that the event does not meet WP:PERSISTENCE. Furthermore, the tone of the article is not neutral and can be seen as an WP:ATTACKPAGE or WP:POVFORK. Therefore, if the subject is to be written about it should begin at the Ted Cruz article, be neutrally worded and well cited per WP:BLP, and if the content grows and that article meets WP:TOOLONG, than it could be possible that this article be recreated as a sub-article. Therefore, I do not support salting the name space at this time, just deletion. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete, leaving open the possibility of merging any relevant information into the Ted Cruz article. I strongly considered making this nomination myself, based mostly on a lack of notability per WP:NOTNEWS. And the nominator's concerns regarding it possibly being an attack page also have merit, given the thin (and almost entirely critical) list of sources currently in use. LHM ^{ask me a question} 18:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Ted Cruz... Roberticus talk 18:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• I've given it some thought, and as the creator of this article, while I of course would prefer that we keep it, I'd also be open to a merge. Most of the content could be merged intact into Ted Cruz and given its own section under his U. S. Senate career. However, the controversy over Tobin's comments is not directly related to Cruz and might be better merged into Jonathan Tobin. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 13:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC) reply

  Just so you know, any merge would not likely result in most of the article being "merged intact." In all likelihood, at most a neutrally-worded paragraph would be merged into the main article. LHM ^{ask me a question} 15:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete or Merge per WP:NOTNEWS. Not enough for standalone article.-- TM 15:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete, or posisbly Merge into Ted Cruz. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. There just aren't reliable sourcing showing how this event matters long term--at best this is WP:TOOSOON.-- danntm ^T _C 00:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Scott McConnell has argued that this controversy is already spreading beyond Cruz and will likely widen into a broader schism within the conservative movement. [1]. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 16:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

  Adding more opinion pieces that happen to agree with your view that this is causing a schism among conservatives does nothing to further the case for keeping this article. LHM ^{ask me a question} 16:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge into Ted Cruz. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON. Can be reinstated as separate article if warranted by continued press coverage.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 19:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete or possibly Merge into Ted Cruz. The controversy was controversial because it was Cruz and it really doesn't look like it amounts to much. It looks to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. I am One of Many ( talk) 04:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Contrary to the suggestions above, this controversy has persisted for a significant period (coming up on two weeks) - which is not a "short news cycle", and has been covered beyond the confines of the conservative commentariat, receiving notice in the Israeli media, among others. Moreover, while its long-term significance remains to be seen, there is ample discussion of how this controversy illuminates divisions within the US conservative movement. I'd be concerned that a merger would result in cursory treatment of a complex matter. We may want a better title, however. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 23:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

  Two weeks is not "a significant period of time." LHM ^{ask me a question} 23:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply

  Two weeks is sufficient for for plenty of events deemed notable for Wikipedia. Obviously, such vague standards are open to different interpretations, but WP:PERSISTENCE makes explicit mention of persistence beyond a "relatively short news cycle". Clearly, we are several news cycles into this controversy. Secondly, I make note that the aforementioned policy notes: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. (emphasis added). Certainly this has become a significant source of analysis and discussion. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete minor event. I'm not sure it should even be included in the article on the Senator unless it becomes significant in an election. I am very reluctant to delete article on the basis of NOT NEWS, which I think we use to hide our head in the sand about what will clearly be seen as important events, but making articles such as this is a clear violation. If the NOT NEWS policy means anything at all, it applies to this NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply

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.