Talk:RightNetwork

untitled
It has been disambiguated as television producer. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability?
How is this anything other than an advertisement? It isn't even in operation yet! 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I took the above off. They're justified, but I don't give a shit. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * wow... the attacks have started already.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Adjusted your entry to proper indent level. The funniest thing about this is that I doubt the people behind this are really hard core right wingers. More like that bland soupy mediocrity of middle think which characterizes the "centre right" nation. It's obviously an attempt to cash in on ignorance and backwardness and in that it is truly contemptible. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the attacks have started already. I found the following on my User Talk page: "This has been done because the page is a blatant advert that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article." The funny thing about the objection is that I was exclusively paraphrasing news articles about the subject, in the New York Daily News and the Philadelphia Inquirer. If this is a "blatant advert," then the issue should be taken up with the editors of those newspapers, because their reporters are writing news stories like "blatant adverts," in the opinion of a Wikipedia editor named 72.228.177.92.

72.228.177.92 is gently and courteously reminded that the article Talk Page is reserved for discussions about how to improve the article. Discussions about 72.228.177.92's opinions of the network that is subject matter of the article, or the "people behind this," do not belong here. Most particularly, characterizations of living persons such as Kelsey Grammer, Andrew Breitbart and Ed Snider as "hard core right wingers," of "truly contemptible" "bland soupy mediocrity," "ignorance" and "backwardness" are especially unwelcome, when we have a policy here called WP:BLP. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Granted, the network has just been announced and it has been covered in other media because they know it has and will generate controversy... hence it is notable, even if it never goes on-air. Definitely no speedy delete. It will need to be watched and developed as more happens related to this organization. Thelmadatter (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well P&W, you accuse me of stating the exact opposite of what I in fact say above wrt the individuals you name and which I refer to as a group ("people behind"). As for their profit motive, I think that's self evident. I also stand behind the statement about the larger culture, though of course it is a generalization. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever you intended to target with these remarks, these remarks don't belong on this page. Do you have any suggestions regarding the content of the article? My sourcing includes AOL News, the New York Daily News and the Philadelphia Inquirer. I've even mentioned the Huffington Post's article, and no one could reasonably construe HuffPo as being inclined to publish a "blatant advert" for a right-wing TV network. I don't see how these news articles could be construed as "blatant adverts," but I'm eager to learn. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, it can hardly be compared with the news media you mention. The creation of this article for a commercial broadcast venture which isn't even in operation degrades wiki as an encyclop&aelig;dic source. Enough. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to WP:AFD, if you choose to proceed. I'm sure you'll find a few people who agree with you, since the article is about a right-wing TV network. But I think the general consensus will be "keep," and Thelmadatter is a good bellwether for that. RightNetwork is notable because it has generated controversy. The article is reliably sourced. In fact, the article has passed muster at WP:DYK where people can get pretty picky about article quality. I've avoided any WP:BLP concerns (at least in the article mainspace). Really, I don't see how you could get this article deleted, unless WP:AFD is controlled by left-wing partisans. Let's hope it isn't. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a well written article, better than the stub the subject matter merits. Do I seem like the kina skank that would rain on your parade? 72.228.177.92 (talk)