Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill O'Reilly controversies

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 of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill O'Reilly controversies

The page is inherently unencyclopedic, containing incidents that can easily be incorporated into the Bill O'Reilly main page. Stanley011 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

comment this nomination seems like a cross between a WP:POINT violation, and vandalism, based on this user's other contributions, I'm leaning towards the latter--152.163.100.200 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)Stanley011 00:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

comment Every single one of my edits have been constructive--I have NEVER vandalized a page on wikipedia and I refer everyone to my contributions page to see the many constructive edits I have made. Stanley011 02:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that's the way you should have responded at the beginning of this. And for what it's worth, I have checked your user page and I am impressed. And I don't believe your putting this article up for deletion is a violation of WP:POINT - as can be seen, progress on the article is continuing even as we debate, so no disruption of the article has taken place. Kasreyn 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

152.163.100.200 is on an AOL connection with a rotating IP address. That IP address is shared with dozens, possibly hundreds of other AOL subscribers. It is not possible, at Wikipedia, to determine which contributions by that IP came from which AOL subscriber. (AOL IP addresses pose a challenge to Wikipedia's warning system which hasn't yet been overcome.) Kasreyn 02:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, at 51k and with 20 or so footnotes, the article can NOT be easily incorporated into the main article. The article seems well-sourced but there are NPOV issues which warrant editing, and perhaps a few sections should be removed, but I don't see anything non-encyclopedic about it if you view it as an extension of the main article, esp. for a non-paper encyclopedia like WP is. hateless 18:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, needs hard editing though. BlueValour 19:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BlueValour --Pilot|guy ^{(roger that)} 19:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Over the past week several editors have been discussing ways to make this situation better. Please read the talk page for details. Joining that discussion with your concerns may have been a better option than an AfD nomination. -MrFizyx 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but edit the non neutral point of view. --Starionwolf 20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Incorporate Edit and include on O'Reilly's main page. There's no need to have people linking and redirecting all over for this. Blintz 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually, yes there is a reason to have people linking and redirecting for this: WP:SIZE. . BoojiBoy 21:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm aware of that rule, but I don't think that this would violate it. Besides, that rule isn't always followed (history articles, especially), and articles are more effective if they're able to develop as a unit, not with chunks of text being arbitrarily removed and filed elsewhere. In any case, if the article on O'Reilly's controversies is as long as the article on O'Reilly in general, some editing needs to be done. Blintz 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Asbl 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As my primary vote. If Keep is defeated, I would strongly favor Merge over Delete. The material should be kept. Kasreyn 01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary Keep but edit. Most of the material is for "controversies" that are not significant enough to note. The article is too long and reads like a blog rather than an encyclopedia article. And it's not like we've seen the last controversy involving Bill... Keep long enough to use the materia to create separate articles about the few topics that were truly notable controversies. "Bill O'Reilly controversies" could become a list or a category. --JChap 02:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I found my way to the page because I wanted to read about the topic. Far too much material to incorporate into the main article. --Grace 07:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The controversies are the main thing that makes Bill O'Reilly notable and there's just too much for the main page. Ace of Sevens 12:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep hateless, MrFizyx, and BoojiBoy, expressed my opinions exactly. Lawyer2b 13:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. MrFizyx has expressed my opinion. MrMurph101 16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Information is definitely useful but does need editing. Jlee562 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Jnelson09
• Keep and clean up by removing superfluous information. Incorporate a more concise verion of the resulting page on the main Bill O'Reilly article. Sysrpl 13:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary Keep but edit, per the reasons noted by JChap. --Dcflyer 22:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Heavy POV fest, I'm afraid there's no way to clean it enough to ever get rid of the POV----Fellow-edit 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:Fellow-edit's first edit was on Stanley011's talk page at 22:46, 14 June 2006:

please help me with this article [Ann Coulter], I'm new and im afraid if i try to edit it, the liberals guarding it will rip me to shreds--Fellow-edit 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on finding AfD in five minutes and how to use templates in 20 (see the history of this AfD page)! --JChap 23:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

lol You sir, have a wicked sense of humor. Kasreyn 00:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Most of the liberals you seem so frightened of are actually pretty reasonable if you give them half a chance. If you're the newbie you claim to be stick around and you'll find this out. --JChap 23:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - First they take everything out of the Bill O'Reilly article which could even be percieved as controversial, then they try to delete it. savidan^(talk)

^(e@) 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment This article was originally split from the O'Reilly article because of the size of the section. The article has been up for quite a while now. Whoever "they" are do not seem to be here since the majority of votes are keep. MrMurph101 00:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. - Glen Stollery 04:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I don't think that there is any way to write an article that is anti-person without being POV. Most entries could be merged, while others amount to nothing or a sound bite at best.--wtfunkymonkey 01:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or else Incorporate the solid content on controversies in the main article. There was a minor edit war in the Malmedy massacre article about O'Reilly's comments, and we managed to keep it down by pointing to the Bill_O'Reilly_controversies#Malmedy_massacre section. We need a place to put well-edited, well-sourced coverage of what O'Reilly says. It's better that it be in articles about O'Reilly than in articles about every subject O'Reilly mentions. If you delete this article, it's vital that the solid content including Malmedy move into the main O'Reilly article. --Jdlh | Talk 06:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as a non-American I find this section rather informative regarding a well known American commentator who has no impact on any country outside of his own. This is his work and reputation and it deserves to have it's own place. When I click on a David Bowie album from his article I get to see what songs are on it. I like to think this section reflects that. In a sense.
• Delete: I have been editing this article heavily because I realize that it will most likely survive the move for deletion. However, I do not believe this article is appropriate for wikipedia. Most of the incidents mentioned here are not notable, and justice can be done to them using a few sentences in the O'Reilly article itself. Stanley011 15:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Do we really need to list every single controversy? He's a controversial guy... list a few and be done with it. --Mrmiscellanious 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable subject and is of importance. Needs work to remove POV but has the potential to be a decent article.--Auger Martel 12:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep too big for the main artice. Let that tell you all you need to know about the guy :P -M^ask 16:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Let this seed grow. Good article particularly in light of the numerous controversies. Netscott 17:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a needed page because Bill O'Reilly invites controversy whether it be inaccuracies or name-calling.

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.