Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fox News liberal

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Democrat in Name Only. The target already has such a section which does not include all the info from here. I'm not going to merge this myself, but will add a tag. -Splash^talk 00:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fox News liberal

This article should be deleted because it is a neologism. That is, the article defines a phrase "fox news liberal", but I find no google results which use use the phrase as a cohesive whole as described in the article. For example, there appear resuts such as "Colmes is the Fox News liberal counterpoint to Hannity". I also find no use of the term desribe someone who is or was not literally on Fox News (whereas the article's point is to describe a phrase which could be applied to those not literally on Fox News). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.147.125 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Democrat in Name Only. Article was nominated VFD by someone without an account. While that is not forbidden, it is possible that a political bias could be present. That being said, however, I agree that the article does not appear much on a google search. However, since the article is already referenced at political locations such as dKosopedia, it is likely that the term may not be a "neologism", but a term whose use is on the increase. To me, merging with the DINO article seems to be the most sensible course of action.--Mitsukai 04:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This article is copied from dKosopedia. That text is also under the GFDL, but Wikipedia's article should cite the source. Also, we should make sure that the term appears in places other than dKos, as it might have been invented by that article's writer. Twinxor t 05:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it copied from dKosopedia? A cursory look that I took made me think this was the older article (though it was a cursory look; I may have erred). It could very well be a neologism, if that's the case.--Mitsukai 13:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with DINO. After looking at the situation surrounding Cindy Sheehan, I agree. There is political bias among the writers. This article is either a Keep or Merge. It doesn't really matter to me that people have favorable or unfavorable support for our President and anyone in politics. But it would be fair to keep a neutral stance to addressing people. And let's not put too much NPOV for certain names. I mean when I first done it, I thought it was just point out O'Reilly and Dean, but nowadays I refuse to use that tag-line unless describing a hot-button issue. LILVOKA 14:33 26, August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Aside from the dKosopedia hit, the only hits on a google serach for this phrase are to Wikipedia articles where it is being used. This is an attempt to use Wikipedia to coin a new phrase and should be deleted. — Linnwood 05:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently subjective and anecdotal. I'm nominating DINO as well. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, term appears to be current (and separate from "DINO"), but needs to cite sources. Please don't nominate DINO, it will be an annoying experience for all. Sdedeo 19:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this, DINO, RINO, and similar. Inherently POV and non-encyclopedic, especially the lists. These are just political point-making at core. -- MCB 21:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not inherently NPOV, but a neologism. --Calton | Talk 21:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this is ridiculous and probably made-up, but apparantly some others don't agree, and their opinions should be respected. --Matt Yeager 00:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as appropriate, and redirect to DINO. Oh, and some notable sources would be nice, too. Alai 00:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge ··gracefool |☺ 16:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This entry is the epitome of NPOV. Its connotation is a point of view on Fox News's (supposed?) political bias. One can not understand the meaning of the phrase unless one take a certain view of Fox News. — Linnwood 00:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The term is POV, but having an article about a POV term is not inherently POV. Paul August ☎ 02:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to be a neologism, would need references to demonstrate otherwise. — Paul August ☎ 02:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. I see no serious arguments for keeping; not a single source cited, and I couldn't find one, either. The article's wildly inaccurate to boot: Susan Estrich, who just got into a big pissing match to the left of Michael Kinsley, is hardly a DINO; and no one tries to claim Zell Miller is a liberal. The Susan Estrich article needs to be cleaned up, as well. -- FRCP11 04:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to DINO, and another call for citations. --Dhartung | Talk 06:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think without citations, it should be considered a neologism and there should be no article titled "Fox News liberal" i.e it should be deleted. I think most or all of the content could probably be merged somewhere else, (DINO seems reasonable), and the term could perhaps even be discussed after the manner some have used the term "Fox News liberal" to describe … or the even weaker: could be described as a "Fox News liberal. Paul August ☎ 16:22, 29 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.