Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Olbermann 24 controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 00:29Z

[edit] Keith Olbermann 24 controversy

Keith Olbermann 24 controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Olbermann's comments were originally included in both the Keith Olbermann and 24 (TV series) articles and were almost immediately deleted after discussion on both articles' talk pages confirmed the comments were not notable enough to include. Since the comments aren't notable enough to include on the subjects' main pages, I believe they certainly aren't notable enough for a separate article. Even the title is ridiculous, as no attempt in the article is made to demonstrate that an actual "controversy" resulted from Olbermann's criticisms.Hal Raglan 15:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, doesn't appear to have been covered by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Doesn't appear to have actually been a controversy either. Recury 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actually, it is mentioned it the criticism section of 24 (TV series). It's not notable enough for an entire article devoted to it, though. BryanG(talk) 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JPG-GR 03:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There's a one-sentence mention at 24_(TV_series)#Criticism, and that's really all this deserves. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not really a controversy. It's already covered sufficiently in the criticism section of 24 (TV series), and this just looks like a POV fork. ShadowHalo 11:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — this merits a comment in 24 (TV series), it's not sufficiently notable to merit an article in its own right └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 11:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
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.