Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critics and rivals of Bill O'Reilly

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 Merge Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critics and rivals of Bill O'Reilly[edit]

Seems like an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm indifferent to Bill O'Reilly but do we need some sort of "rogue's gallery" of people who do not like the guy? Should we have Critics and rivals of Howard Stern? Or how about List of people who don't like buttermilk? Arthur Fonzarelli 00:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Certainly is 'an indiscriminate collection of information', has alot of refs but thats just because its info from a lot of critics newspaper articles and such. There are calls for articles on "criticism of..." but they are needed when the parent article is VERY significan, like the Bush presidency or something. Then again, it's valid, referenced info, but it needs to be moved/merged/cleaned up or something if its going to stand on its feet.... argh, I'm torn. SGGH 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to more common Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (e.g. Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Wikipedia). --Dhartung | Talk 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion why not cut out all the waffle and merge into Bill O'Reilly (commentator)? --Nick Dowling 00:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Dhartung. Soltak | Talk 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Dhartung. The information here is well-written, well-sourced, and would be far too unwieldy to incorporate into the main article. Seventypercent 00:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bill O'Reilly. This article and Bill O'Reilly controversies should not be forked from the main article. Encyclopedia articles are meant to summarize and help the reader get a basic idea of the subject to facilitate further research, not present every quote and every bit of information. Here's a choice quote: While not a fierce or long-standing critic, conservative pundit Tucker Carlson has occasionally criticized O'Reilly's statements as being "over the top". Who cares? Take this crap to POVWarriorPedia. --- RockMFR 01:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bill O'Reilly controversies and Rename the merged article to Criticisms of Bill O'Reilly. There seems to be some duplication between the two articles, but each contains some unique information. However, once merged, the article would need heavy pruning and rewriting to be encyclopedic. Unfortunately, the main Bill O'Reilly article is already large enough to spawn several sub-articles, so I don't think merging there would be much of a solution. There's already precident for criticism forks per Criticism of Mormonism, among others. -- Kesh 01:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Dhartung. FireSpike 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bill O'Reilly. Criticism of controversial figures is a legitimate subject, but a controversy has to be particularly significant for a criticism article to be spun off. If separate criticism is kept, Rename to Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (standard label). In either case rewrite to summarize and focus on key criticisms rather than listing key critics. Shorten. --Shirahadasha 02:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge cause I'm a lemming. (And they make good points.) Kyaa the Catlord 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Combine with Bill O'Reilly controversies and make it Criticism of Bill O'Reilly per above statements. I proposed this sort of thing on the article's talk page but there was no response. Anyway, this was split from the controversies article because of how large it became. I think the two articles can be truncated to form a more solid article. MrMurph101 03:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Dhartung. --Pixelface 03:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename with Bill O'Reilly controversies to Criticisms of Bill O'Reilly as described by Kesh, to keep the main Bill O'Reilly from becoming overlong with controversies but to keep the important and well-referenced information in these articles on Wiki. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rename per Kesh. JCO312 17:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for lists of rivals made by people. Not really very notable, I think should go. Tellyaddict 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to fall into WP:NOT#DIR. Of course an outspoken national political talk show host (could one be a national political talk show host without being outspoken?) has his critics. Does there need to be more than a paragraph or 2 of the SIGNIFICANT criticisms? "O'Reilly has been criticized for his view of X by Mr.Y and Ms. Z". Maybe it should be renamed to "What others think of Bill O'Reilly" so that advocates and proponents can have their say without adding another separate article. Kill it. --JJLatWiki 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Doesn't seem notable enough to merit its own entry.Caliwiki123 19:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Dhartung. Edison 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bill O'Reilly. The article doesn't need to be forked. 72.150.232.144 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bill O'Reilly. If the section gets big enough, you can fork it then. Just H 03:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rename per Kesh. Netuser500 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom reasons. Cricket02 04:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rename per Kesh (i.e. with "controversies"). Marm^(t) 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Dhartung. NTXweather 04:07, 1 February 2007 (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.