Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Business Review (second nomination)

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 - no socks please. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Business Review

Paris Business Review (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

(While this is the second nom for an article under this title, it's the first nom for an article on this exact subject; the former article was only tangentially related to this one, apparently.) Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how a slip of the tongue by Bill O'Reilly during one interview segment two and a half years ago is somehow worthy of a Wikipedia article, unless you were just using it as an attack article, that is. Delete as total WP:N failure that exists only to disparage its subject. Aaron 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. People who are curious about the subject and whether or not it exists could very well look to Wikipedia. The article could be improved in terms of reducing POV, but it is informative. I'd be OK with merging it with Bill O'Reilly controversies as well, but it's certainly not the least notable independent article on the site. There is a degree of Internet popularity for the phrase, including parody sites. Also, the idea that it is merely a "slip of the tongue" gives O'Reilly too much credit, as he invented the publication and the things it supposedly said to support his point of view. It's not as if he slipped and said "Paris" instead of "French" but his point remained valid: his point was wrong and he cited a periodical that does not exist to bolster it. Croctotheface 00:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the brittlely crappy search functions for Wikipedia, I say redirect and merge to Bill O'Reilly controversies, so someone searching for this term can go directly to an explanation. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Bill O'Reilly making stuff up isn't even news. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Invented by Bill O'Reilly, only ever used by Bill O'Reilly, a term with absolutely no currency in the outside world.
Xdamrtalk 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Bill O'Reilly controversies-there sure is a lot of space in wikipedia devoted to this guy. Who else can mention something that turns out not to exist and have an entire article devoted to it? Arthur Fonzarelli 20:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - if only to serve as an illustration of a particular interviewing tactic. 38.100.34.2 00:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - invented! Do you understand? It is not real. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:25, 28 November 2006 (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.