Talk:Mike Carroll (politician)
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Deletion or rewriting of the recently added "First Amendment Controversy" section
editThe section Mike Carroll (politician)#First Amendment Controversy, which was added on May 15 2024 by user 50.232.221.146, is unsourced, appears to be potentially libelous/defamatory, and is generally worded with hostility against Carroll. I could only find two sources about the event referenced in the section: this opinion piece in the Irvine Watchdog and this YouTube video of the incident. Furthermore, this does not change the fact that the section, as written by the editor, is not sourced and does not follow Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view. I have rewritten the section to provide more fairer context (specifically regarding the actions of the auditors, what actually happened at the two public meetings, and events predating the specific town hall meeting) as well as a more neutral point of view. However, I am still under the impression that the inclusion of this topic in Carroll's article may be unnecessary, as outside of the YouTube video this topic has only been mentioned in the Irvine Watchdog, which itself could be considered a questionable source. This raises questions about if we are putting undue weight on the topic. JaySVMS (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am deleting this section. This specific event does not appear to be notable outside of the aforementioned YouTube video. These auditors are a part of a larger movement focused on creating content similar to that section. It seems irrelevant for this page to mention one small incident, when even just viewing the viewing the YouTube channel that published the video seems to reveal hundreds of similar videos. The section was already written with a biased view, the YouTube video is a questionable source, and it is not a notable part of his career. Wikipedia does not document every small incident that a minor politician is involved in. 2--2li (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)