Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill O'Reilly controversies (2nd nomination)

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. Glen 11:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Reilly controversies

Thank you, everyone, for your votes. Clearly there is a strong concensus for Keep. I do not know who will close this out, but I am removing the RfD from the Article. --Blue Tie 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time this artice has been nominated for deletion. The first nomination, which resulted in Keep can be found here

It seems this proposal is hasn't got a "snowball's chance in hell". I am thinking of withdrawing it. --Blue Tie 13:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This argument for deletion is on a different basis. The article seems to be a POV FORK:

I quote the policy regarding NPOV:

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

And I quote the Guideline regarding POV Forks:

Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.

A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.

Blue Tie 00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For evidence that it is a fork, see the discussion page (to keep this one short and to the point)--Blue Tie 19:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is the epitome of a POV fork. The article is inherently a list of criticisms of a living person. It is a list that consists mainly of an individual's mistatements and mistakes. It is not the role of Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) to serve as a vehicle for the airing of grievances against polarizing figures such as Bill O'Reilly. -- Dcflyer 01:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - There's a tonne of references so it's not voilating anything. The whole point of this split was so we could keep the main article nice and "pretty" - but this man has certainly created more than his fair share of controversy - in fact, along with Coulter that's how they've become notable in the first place. Strong keep. - Glen 05:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it is not a POV Fork as described above. It sounds as though you are describing a POV Fork exactly in your reason for "Strong Keep". Maybe you prefer to merge the two articles. That seems fine to me. But how is keeping the split in order to keep the main article pretty NOT a POV Fork per the above description? Thanks --Blue Tie 18:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes perhaps I should have explained myself better. I recall when this split was done, and if I recall correctly it was done for two reasons. a) Because the Bill O'Reilly article was becoming just too large, and b) Because the article was becoming overly focused on the many (notable) O'Reilly controversies. The split was due to an NPOV imbalance, but rather as it was the best way to split article based on size (the fact that both remain approx. 40kB shows this was correct). This also had the added benefit of keeping the main article nice and "pretty" for O'Reilly fans (I am assuming there's one or two). NPOV is not violated here as every controversy is well referenced and notable. Hope this clarifies. - Glen 03:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:FORK [1]: "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique."

Why don't you give evidence of a POV fork? It is not enough just to make the claim. Arbusto 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The article is not kept for the purpose of criticizing, but for documenting controversies created by a very controversial figure. The writing is not overtly slanted, and all "negative material" is well cited. The biggest thing working against Bill O'Reilly's credibility is Bill O'Reilly; we just record the history as it happens.--Ryan! 06:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it is not a POV Fork. Thanks --Blue Tie 18:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article would only be a POV Fork if it was created to avoid placing a certain POV in the article itself. This article was created as a spinoff article, not to express a POV, but to prevent the Bill O'Reilly article from becoming too long in the tooth. Spinoff articles done in this manner are a normal Wikipedia occurence. "Reasons Bill O'Reilly should be Boycotted by France" would be a POV Fork. This article is not (again, because it is merely documenting the controversies Bill O'Reilly himself stirs up).--Ryan! 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, most of the incedents on the page are notable controversies. The strongest being: Malmedy massacre, Clooney/United Way section, Jeremy Glick, French boycott and it's effect, Ludacris boycott, Peabody award claims, childhood home claims, San Francisco remarks, Hubcaps incident, Letterman fight, and WMD non-apology. All received considerable attention. But a couple could be tossed, like the anti-gay remarks, school profanity allegations, ACLU remarks, and possibly the Cindy Sheehan section. Crumbsucker 12:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. 1) This nominator claims this is a POV fork without evidence. It is clearly a content fork, which is allowed and standard[2] when articles grow long. 2) I do not see how this is "propaganda" to deframe O'Reilly. If the nominator feels that way he should hash out issues of unsourced/poor sourced claims on the talk-- which did not occur. An AfD is not the method to solve POV issues. After reviewing further comments by the nominator. I changed my vote from Strong keep to Speedy keep.Arbusto 17:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my comments on the talk page regarding evidence. --Blue Tie 20:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the talk. You defined what a POV fork is by quoting policy. I want proof that people have created that article/ added to it for the purpose of keeping the information off the main article or to slant the article against the subject. If you have proof of the latter, that should've be addressed on the talk page not AfD-- as you were already told before you made the AfD.[3] Arbusto 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Talk page--Blue Tie 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Bill O'Reilly page is 39 kilobytes long while this Bill O'Reilly controversies page is 40 kilobytes long. Merging them would create a monster but if this is deleted then the merge should be done. At present there are barely any mentions of controversies on the O'Reilly page although this page is well sourced from that page for further reading. I agree this page might be considered a POV fork but deleting the page does not solve the problem. First, we should make the Bill O'Reilly page more NPOV with much of this page stably merged into that article (if that occurred i would support this deletion proposal). Whatever one thinks of O'Reilly, no one can deny that his career is controversial. David D. (Talk) 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as everything's referenced, it's NPOV. Battle Ape 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Even O'Reilly's most ardent supporters have to agree that he has been involved in numerous controversies. I don't see any NPOV problems in describing these controversies as long as the details are fully cited to reliable sources.Hal Raglan 15:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Glen and Hal Raglan. Ask yourself this - Why do we have a Columbine High School article and Columbine High School massacre? Why not merge these? Is it because they merit thier own entry? The same applies here. I say keep. JungleCat talk/contrib 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. NTXweather 03:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per all of the above. Al-Andalus 01:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over back on the main bio page. Actually, just keep it. The article has been improving over time. It was not intended as a POV fork whether your a fan and think it's an attack page or, if you're a critic, think it was a place to obscure this content by extracting it from the main bio article. It was created as a spinoff since that section got so big on the main page. I think it would be better to go over any issues anyone has on the talk page. Some of the entries are already on both pages which seems redundant. The other may be to watch out for recentism if you think that it's a concern. MrMurph101 22:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article needs to be reset to remove the entrenched bias and cruft that pollute it----Fellow-edit 17:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only what was previously stated but the simple fact that the article is called "Bill O'Reilley Controversies". Meaning that it features information on that subject people want to know. You can't simply shut out information because it's not enjoyed by some. If anything emphisize that it be cleaned up, not deleted. That's censorship.
Strong Keep- As per all of the above. Roby0215 00:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- I believe the original complaint is that the article is unencyclopedic, not that it's NPOV. That statement implies that a NPOV list of facts does not belong in a written body of knowledge. The alternative is an implicit coverup of those facts. Merging the articles would exceed the length guidelines. Strong keep. Naysayer 22:22, 10 September 2006 (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.