Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Fox News – White House controversy


 * 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. At a first glance this seems like an obvious "no consensus" or even perhaps a "keep". Many editors who took part in the discussion submit that the article is adequately notable and that the article is of sufficient interest to justify keeping it around. However, such arguments are quite often unsubstantiated. Indeed, many keep votes consist of essentially "It is notable" without any sort of explanation or reasoning. This is not always the case granted, so with a hint of reluctance, I conclude that consensus endorses the nomination. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Fox News – White House controversy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete An important news item but WP:NOTNEWS. Any worthwhile content can be moved to the linked pages -- most likely the article on Fox News.  Article is a WP:COATRACK as is. HyperCapitalist (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The title to this article also opens up the material to anything in the past 10 months that could be considered a controversy between the WH and FN too. I suspect that means a few other items... HyperCapitalist (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment After hearing the debate here, I strongly support the merge strategy (U.S. Presidents and the media) as suggested by Stevertigo way down below and at the top of the article in question. However, I don't feel I can change my position from delete as my opinion is unchanged if the article's title remains as it is currently. HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is attracting quite a bit of attention in a variety of sources and appears to be a fairly significant event in the early Obama administration. Trilemma (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NOTNEWS, in spite of its name, says that news is OK provided the item is significant. It seems that this is certainly significant enough to have it's own article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Quote notable at this point, but the article needs a complete rewrite. Third party sourcing is copious, but you can bet this is going to be an OR and POV target for a while to come.  Suggest everyone put this on the watchlist and help keep things neutral.  :)  / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:NOTNEWS and is notable -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 05:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This reads as contradictory, can you please elaborate upon what it is you are trying to express? JBsupreme (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP is not a repository of every single reference to every single whining bitchfest that Fox News manufactures between itself and the Obama or any other presidential administration. Obama appeared on several news shows on the same day and Fox News whinged about it. Not anywhere close to the threshold for a WP article. It's not a "controversy" anywhere outside the fevered brains of Fox News. Eddie&#39;s Teddy (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Cos the material, obviously, is adequately sourced (and do so speedily for reasons of Wiki proper procedure because this nomination requests no more than a merger).↜ (‘ Just  M &#8202;E&#8202; ’here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 07:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm leaning more towards delete on this but the unavailability of the PBS website makes it impossible for me to properly assess the sources so I will reserve judgement for now. Adambro (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Fox News, nor any other news organisation. At best it might merit a sentence in the Fox News article or an article about the media relations of the Obama presidency, but nothing more than that. "News organisation didn't get interview, throws toys out of pram" is not the basis for an encyclopaedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: What's with using ae in encyclopedia? Now I feel really embarrassed; people from other countries see the crap we (U.S.) air on television. Tis shameful. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I'm British, I use the British English spelling of "encyclopaedia", which includes ae. Alternatively "encyclopædia" is also correct here in Rightpondia, but that can be seen as pretentious! Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Although a ton of media voices have advised the White House to ignore Fox News, the White House probably knows what it is doing to call Fox News out for essentially being a partisan organization. Those who believe and argue that the controversy is one-way, Fox complaining about the White House, may well be influenced by some desire to pretend that the White House had indeed ignored Fox. But, geez, folks! The die was cast and the White House has drawn its line in the sand! ( -- which several commentators think may well work out well for the White House, in the end, truth be told). Still, it boggles the mind that folks could argue that the topic isn't of note (per, of course, WP:N).↜ (‘ Just  M &#8202;E&#8202; ’here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 09:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading those links, I stand by my opinion that this event merits a sentence in an article about media relations of the Obama presidency and Fox News. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (and others) - Do you have a policy on which a delete opinion is based? Is there a notability guideline that you believe this article fails?  I've yet to see anyone address a policy whilst issuing a delete !vote... WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N are both satisfied. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the guidelines I'm basing my opinions on include WP:N, WP:NOTEWS, WP:RECENT. Just because something is verifiable, newsworthy, recent and/or controversial does not necessarily make it encyclopaedic. If you want to document current and recent newsworthy items then Wikinews is the place to be. If anything is encyclopaedically notable about this event it is only as a small part of the wider topic about the relationship between Obama's presidency and the media. We don't need a separate article every time a politician does or does not appear on a television network. I also don't see how WP:NOTNEWS is satisfied. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)\
 * Oh please, what part of WP:N isn't satisifed? I think you misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS, which is intended to keep us from becoming a newspaper (and not a bar against having encyclopedic articles about news stories).  Given that virtually every news outlet in the country has covered this (most notably, USA Today, NPR, and (ironically) Fox news) the argument that it's non-notable is almost laughable.  WP:RECENT is an essay (and in any case is trumped by the significant amount of coverage this has received).  I'm not sure how anyone can argue that this isn't significant, verifiable, and copiously sourced.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying, and have never said, that this is not verifiable, not sourced/sourceable or not significant. What I am saying is that on its own the event is not encyclopaedic (everything that is encyclopaedic passes WP:N, but not everything that passes WP:N is encyclopaedic, and not everything that is encyclopaedic needs its own article). My view is that the incident itself is newsworthy, as demonstrated by all the news coverage, but is only encyclopaedic as a small part of the larger encycloapedic topic of Fox News and/or an article about the media relations of the Obama presidency. There is nothing in the article that is not news coverage, and news coverage belongs in Wikinews not Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The topic is notable, I just hope this doesn't set a bad precedence for creating a new article every time Beck bursts into tears. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - The article seems to fail to demonstrate why this particular incident is notable and so I agree with Thryduulf's comments. I fear some may expecting that this issue might become something more significant but such speculation isn't appropriate. WP:NOTNEWS is relevant; "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own". The length of the article seems to support the suggestion that an article here is not necessary and that this event could be adequately dealt with in other articles. It note the comments that this article satisfies WP:NOTE that has been given as a reason for keeping this article but I'd suggest we can't simply say that any topic which has "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" automatically needs an article, not least where it is probably true to say that any trivial incident concerning the White House is likely to result in dozens of news articles. Adambro (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News outlets all over the U.S. have been pushing this thing for what feels like months now; this wasn't just a one day thing. Also, the length of the article is irrelevant, this isn't FAC. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that your first point is relevant to how we choose to handle particular events. There could be a thousand news stories about something that still might only merit a single paragraph in an existing article. We shouldn't take the view that the requirements of, for example, multiple independent reliable sources, being satisfied automatically mean a new article is appropriate. What it means is that we could have an article on that subject, not that we have to. It is for us to carefully consider how that would fit with our other content and whether we already might have an article where the subject could be appropriately covered.
 * On your second point, that "the length of the article is irrelevant", I'd very much disagree. The amount of coverage of a subject is always relevant in considering if a separate article is appropriate or it can be included in existing articles. In this situation, the amount of content we have on this subject is such that it could probably be merged into another article. Adambro (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, WP:ONLYGUIDELINE, but I think in this case, bearing in mind that its notability does not necessitate an article, I think it is deserving of one. This controversy is big enough that it should be included both as a paragraph in other articles and with a link to a full article detailing the entire controversy. I think by covering it in this manner we can give varying amounts of detail to it while still providing full coverage. I guess it really comes down to whether or not we believe it deserves a full article or not. Also, the length of the article would only be relevant if we had exhausted all sources available on the subject. This is definitely not the case here. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The subject matter is notable, though difficult to manage.  Because its an ongoing "controversy" its hard to know how long this will last and whether merger into something greater will be appropriate at a later date, which was similarly debated in the recent AfD for Resignation of Sarah Palin.  In the meantime, does anyone have the number to that red phone Beck has, I'd like to prank call him.--Milowent (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reliable sources exist and have been cited. We can give it encyclopedic treatment, so I can't support deletion, and do not feel that an accurate reading of WP:NOTNEWS requires one. I agree, however, that as an editorial decision, this might be better handled inside an article such as Fox News until time gives us a better perspective on how significant this incident truly is. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify whether you are suggesting this article be merged rather than left as a standalone article? That is my position but I've described that as "Delete" in the sense that I feel this article doesn't need to exist, not that I don't think we should mention this incident anywhere on Wikipedia. I've revised my comment to change it to "Merge" which is probably a better description of my position. Adambro (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the article meets the guidelines for a standalone, and nominally is entitled to exist as such. However, as a matter of editorial discretion, I favor the article being merged until we have more perspective. TLDR version, just because we can doesn't mean we should. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. This should be part of the Obama Presidency and FNC.  As it stands it is likey to become a WP:FORK.  Arzel (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete This article certainly falls under the domain of WP:NOTNEWS and it should be also noted that this sort of complaint/controversy is not new with previous administrations blocking/complaining/etc of a news channel/paper they do not like/agree with. (It seems as if the reverse was happening last year with MSNBC and the Bush administration and even earlier on with the Nixon administration and the Washington Post.)  This article should be merged either with the Obama presidency article, FNC article, or some other related article.  Alone this topic does not stand up to have it's own article and can quickly devolve into a complaint/criticism article with only biased RS's to back it up.  Brothejr (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not sure if this deserves its own article..yet. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- not news is around to prevent us from becoming from some cheap tabloid covering the ordinary minutae of every day life. This situation is far from ordinary and far from mere minutae, given the fact that those involved are the White House and a major "news" network, this is not something minor and trivial, nor will it end quickly and cleanly (ok, maybe I'm engaging in a little crystal ball gazing here, but it still seems like a reasonable conclusion to make given the facts). This is likely to be a long, drawn out mess. Whether or not it deserves its own article outside that of Fox News and President Obama, I'm not sure. That, however, is a matter for discussion at the talk page, not a matter of deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. Every politician in every democratic country has conflicts with every independent news agency in that country.  Its part of the proper relationship between journalists and politicians; journalists are supposed to be the watchdogs of the government.  They are supposed to be a critical voice, and the government is supposed to not like that.  Its how the system works!  This conflict is no more important or notable than any other conflict between a politician and the press that covers them.  There is absolutly nothing notable about this situation.  The bigger issue is why this article exists, which is patently obvious, its a WP:COATRACK to stuff all of the material that continually gets removed from other articles.  People have gotten tired of trying to insert overt commentary about Obama into articles where it doesn't belong, so this article is merely an attempt to get in through the back door what isn't being allowed to come in through the front.  -- Jayron  32  16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "journalists are supposed to be the watchdogs of the government." I think part of the reason for the controversy is that these "journalists" had no apparent interest in being "watchdogs" of the last government, but seem to decide whether or not to be "government watchdogs" on the basis of which party is running the government. Carlo (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. The controversy calls into question the very reasons why we have journalists and news networks. For instance, what function does Fox News provide to the public? Indeed, this should be the very topic of the article, vacuous as the answer may be. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayron32: Re-read whatcha wrote! You did not provide a genuine rationale for deletion, per se; you only provided a rationale not to merge to -- (it would be presumed) "Presidency of Barack Obama." ("Movies are made everyday; so, therefore, no movie is notable" -- ain't an argument !)↜ (‘ Just  M &#8202;E&#8202; ’here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 17:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (2 edit conflicts) Eh? My interpretation was that because it's regular news, it shouldn't have a special article and should be either within the presidency page or similar related page. He makes a good argument, but I still think this particular case is deserving of an article since the FNC arm of the GOP is really pushing this one more than most of their regular pander. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whateva. ;^)↜ (‘ Just  M &#8202;E&#8202; ’here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the article but keep the info. I don't think this is an encyclopedic or particularly notable subject.  It's looking like an essay on a real issue, but one that's a collection of different subjects.  Sure, Fox News is conservative, it has been antagonizing the White House and vice-versa, and a series of individual incidents and scandals have taken place.  That is worth describing in the encyclopedia to the extent it can be sourced and written about neutrally.  But it isn't worth cobbling all that together in an article that claims it is a notable subject in its own right.  Instead, the information is better organized by farming it out as a series of individual articles about various incidents, and for less notable incidents adding the material to the articles about the various people, news programs, events, and institutions involved.  For example, if Glenn Beck gets in a dust-up with an administration appointee that can go in the Glen Beck article, in the article about his show, an article about the incident, and/or an article about the appointee.  For purposes of keeping the information in the same place I would go with a category or template, so people who want to follow the history of Fox v. White House they can just click there.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds mighty complicated.↜ (‘ Just  M &#8202;E&#8202; ’here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 17:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least until it develops further. This could turn into a major problem for either the Obama administration, Fox News, or both, and could become a major tipping point in the continued popularity and/or survival of either, and that absolutely has encyclopedic value. If nothing else, at least merge it with Presidency, and then later it can be decided whether or not to break it off or leave it  Josh  ua In  gram   18:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. This is entirely more important than the Colorado balloon hoax, and I don't see anyone suggesting we delete that article! This is important, and could develop to be huge. Let's just keep it for now.  Josh  ua In  gram   18:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I wonder if this article could be merged or rewritten to encompass other presidents and their interactions/disagreements with the press? I feel that angle we be more encyclopedic then how the article is currently written. Brothejr (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this suggestion, but I have concerns regarding the scope of the proposal. Whilst this particular micro-issue is very well sourced, I could see the additional information of the macro proposal as being a bigger original research/synthesis target (which occurs when sources are lacking and the topic is 'hot').  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let the present editing fury play out. Too often, articles are nominated for deletion simply because one side has strongly held views about (an uncomfortable, for them) subject. Nomination for deletion seems to be the first line of recourse in such situations relating to controversial topics.  I've seen it happen on some of the "hot topic" global warming articles, especially as it relates to BLPs of individuals on the "wrong" side of the issue.  It too often serves as a vehicle for de-emphasizing or burying topics one disagrees with. --John G. Miles (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * John, I'm the nominating editor for this AfD. Which of my edits has led you to this conclusion? HyperCapitalist (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was honestly a generic observation of past experience and wasn't directed at anyone in particular but the pattern I've seen in nominations (as soon as an issue seems to be controversial) and really more so in the voting that follows the nomination. Don't worry, it wasn't a criticism of you in particular, just a general observation of how I have seen these things work in the past.  No offense was intended whatsoever. --John G. Miles (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, no offense taken. HyperCapitalist (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a pretty normal tit-for-tat that happens regularly between the administrations and dissenters.  Every government body decides which dissenters it wants to dialog with and which it wants to snub.  We don't shouldn't have any articles about specific events during Carter's relationship with the media.  Instead, we have a few sentences in his article.  This article is going to seem pretty dumb in 30 years.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, comparison to what Wikiarticles exist with concern to the Carter administration isn't valid (especially since there was no Internet nor Wikipedians then to write them); we only need to determine if the topic is notable. (And, in that regard, see the following Wiki editing helps):"Recentism in the first sense—established articles that are bloated with event-specific facts at the expense of longstanding content—is usually considered one of Wikipedia's faults. But in many cases, the recentist content can be a valuable preliminary stage in gathering information. Any encyclopedia, even Britannica, goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are published while in draft and developed/improved in real time, so rapidly developing drafts may appear to be a clutter of news links and half-developed thoughts. Later, as the big picture emerges, the least relevant content ought to be and often is eliminated .---WP:RECENTISM""Policy relating to fancruft. As with most of the issues of What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research, the latter two of which are valid reasons for deletion. Such articles may also fall into some of the classes of entries judged to be 'indiscriminate collections of information'.  Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles .  ¶   Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.---WP:FANCRUFT"↜ (‘ Just  M &#8202;E&#8202;  ’here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 12:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding my statement about Carter, your argument is valid. It was meant as an analogy, but I wasn't clear about that.  I added a strike-through above and I recognize that it doesn't totally fix everything.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (comment merged above)
 * DUPLICATE !VOTE ALERT - JBsupreme, did you forget that you already issued a "delete" opinion above? Why are you now posting a second !vote as if your opinion wasn't previously represented??  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I echo this valid concern as raised by . Cirt (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: See additional source coverage satisfying WP:NOTE, topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, see list below.


 * Keep. This is a notable set of events within Obama's first year.  Give it time to sort out. Jwesley78 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) The New York Times: The Battle Between the White House and Fox News
 * 2) The Washington Post: The White House's war with Fox News
 * 3) St. Louis Post-Dispatch: The White House war on Fox News
 * 4) The Daily Telegraph: War between White House and Fox News
 * 5) Canada Free Press: The White House will lose its war against Fox News
 * 6) The Washington Examiner: Why the White House attack on Fox is backfiring
 * 7) Baltimore Sun: White House war on Fox
 * 8) Detroit Free Press: The White House vs. Fox News
 * 9) Kansas City Star: The White House vs. Fox News White House and Fox News sniping gets louder
 * 10) CBS News: Missing The Point In The Fox-White House Spat
 * 11) The Daily Telegraph: The White House will lose its war against Fox News
 * 12) Dallas Morning News: White House only loser in fight with Fox News
 * 13) Baltimore Sun: Obama vs. Fox? Fox wins
 * 14) The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: White House Steps Up Criticism of Fox News Channel
 * 15) The Washington Post: Obama's dumb war with Fox News
 * 16) CNN: Good strategy for White House to go after Fox News?
 * 17) The Week Magazine: Obama's war with Fox News
 * 18) Boston Herald: Obama vs Fox News
 * 19) World Magazine: The White House war on Fox News
 * 20) Los Angeles Times: The Obama war against Fox News
 * 21) CBS News: White House Takes Aim at Fox News
 * 22) Reuters: White House vs. Fox News
 * 23) MSNBC: White House steps up attacks on Fox News
 * 24) Detroit Free Press: Despite claims, White House says it won't shut out Fox News

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope Cirt doesn't mind but I've refactored his comment in an attempt to improve the readability of this discussion. I don't think we need to repeat the same list of sources in more than one place so I've replaced it with a link to the same list on the talk page. In response to Cirt's comments, I would highlight my earlier comment that satisfying the basic criteria of WP:NOTE does not mean we must have an individual article on this or any other subject. It simply means we could do. What we have to do is consider how best to present content about a subject in the context of other articles covering related subjects. That means we should consider whether this subject could be appropriately dealt with in other articles. That is the reason why I feel this page should be deleted and the content merged into other articles. Adambro (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do mind. It is inappropriate to refactor comments of other editors other than yourself. Especially as you are an involved participant in this AFD, and not an uninvolved admin in this AFD. Cirt (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the list should stay, but would you mind collapsing it Cirt? Skomorokh,  barbarian  12:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * @, thank you very much for your polite request. I will do so now. Cirt (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. :) Cirt (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough if Cirt feels the list needs to remain on this page. It's just a shame he reacted how he did following what was intended, exactly how I explained it, to simply improve the readability of this page. I welcome his edit to collapse the list but am disappointed by his pointed comments in doing so. Let's try to keep focused on discussing this article instead of getting into pointless squabbles. Adambro (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See this comment by I am definitely on the same page as you on the issue of altering other editors' comments. Note also Talk_page_guidelines: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. (bolding in original page). Cirt (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I've said, lets not get into pointless squabbles. Adambro (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Previously uninvolved admin 's choice to ask me to collapse the list, instead of doing so himself, was a much more polite and constructive way to act. Cirt (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would note that this and this are the same story, this appears twice in this list, and the link to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article doesn't work and so needs changing to this. This is perhaps another example of why it would be better to simply link to the list on the talk page. For fear of upsetting Cirt I won't fix these errors in either of the two places they appear but would ask that he does. Regards. Adambro (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are coming across a bit hostile User:Cirt, just letting you know. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct, Odie5533, and I have apologized to . I wonder if it would be alright to collapse this above exchange, as was done with my source list? Cirt (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

- many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section), - others need a moderate amount of info on the topic's more important points (a set of multi-paragraph sections), and - some readers need a lot of detail on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate articles). ¶ The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects."Plus one comment (last one, promise): I've always been curious, When "merge" discussions are merely templated with "Merge to"/"Merge from" tags, the resulting discussions attract maybe a half-dozen commenters, but when someone who favors a merger instead starts an AfD, a score or more folks show up to debate the issue, why is that? I think it's cos the AfD page is more sexy somehow than Wikipedia's list of contemplated mergers.↜ (‘ Just  M &#8202;E&#8202; ’here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 16:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jayron32, with whom I agree completely. Tim Song (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this "controversy" is not an encyclopedic topic in its own right. It might merit some bare mention in the Fox article or the Presidency of Obama article, but this ginnned up "controversy" (Obama says Fox are a propaganda outlet! Fox says Obama is a secret communist!) does not rise to encyclopedically notable on its own. It's basically just a coatrack for the mud thrown in both directions during a hissy fit. If any mud sticks on either party well, as I said, put it in the Fox article or one of the Obama articles.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (@ Jayron32 & @ Bali ultimate, etc.): The NYTimes-JMcCain-lobbyist affair or the Obama-Ayers controversy, for example, could well have been covered, in the first case, on some McCain-series article plus on wherever is the "NYTimes controversies" page and, in the second case, on some Obama-series page plus on Professor Ayers's BLP, but it just made more sense to treat the events of either controversy in one main place each -- that's the Wikiway. (a) Per WP:N, if reliable 2ndary sources cover a controversy, it merits coverage in Wikipedia, and if this would be more conveniently accomplished through having a distinct article on the topic, do so. (b) Per WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and especially per NPOV's WP:ASF (which reads, Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves, [bolding in the original]) if notable commentators believe whatever issue -- eg the supposed "McCain lobbyist affair" or the supposed "Ayers issue" -- a hissy fit, the encylopedia might make note of or grant encyclopedic coverage to that opinion, nevertheless we cannot unilaterally endorse such an opinion.↜ (‘ Just  M &#8202;E&#8202; ’here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 15:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an important topic which has enough media attention.Clearcrash1 (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, also check out
 * 1) WP:POV fork
 * 2) WP:POV fork
 * 3) WP:POV fork"Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter."
 * 4) WP:SUMMARY (or WP:DETAIL)"Wikipedia is not divided into a macropædia, micropædia, and concise versions as is the Encyclopædia Britannica &mdash; we must serve all three user types in the same encyclopedia. Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs;
 * Cmt Justme, you write: 'Per WP:N, if reliable 2ndary sources cover a controversy, it merits coverage in Wikipedia." There is no such language on notability there. There is a one line summary: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. That word "topic" is a tricky one. I don't see a topic here. I see Fox and Obama as the topics (with perhaps some spinoff topics -- Beck, Biden, Emannuel, whoever). As to the two examples above (aside fron nyah nyah nyah otherstuff). We have no article called the NYTimes-JmcCain-lobbyist affair. We do have an article called the John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 which i would be very happy to see nuked from orbit having just read it. A little of that could go into the McCain 08 presidential campaign article and since there is now a pending lawsuit by Iseman a bit more of that could go into Iseman article, with probably a little more of it in the NYT article, which can expand or shrink depending on if Iseman wins the suit. As for the Ayer's-Obama article. I hate it and do think it's a coat rack, but accept the shrillness and hysteria on this issue rose to such epic proportions that it became a topic. If this "controversy" likewise rises to those levels (it will take at least six months to figure out if it does) this could be revisited (in isolation from everything else, Fox News - Obama White House dispute would be a much better name for this). We should have a strong bias against alleged topics that involve large media organizations, since they obviously generate t heir own "sources" on the matter and feed the ginned up situation for ratings. That's certainly what I see here. Really, where does it end. Limbaugh-White house controversy, MSNBC-Bush White House controversy, The New Republic says mean things about Obama, makes Emannuel curse controversy. The mind reels.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * @ Bali ultimate: w/r to WP:N's "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article": Nope, nobody forces WPdians to cover any particular topic; yet WP indeed grows as Wiki recentist fancrufters contribute collations of 2ndary sources on whatever quote notable end'o'quote topics they might find interest in (per WP:Recentism, the entire section). IOW, I think it would not only hurt WP, it would be an asset to the project, were every single subsection in the article United States journalism scandals to receive treatment in distinct, well- researched and written articles.↜ (‘ Just  M &#8202;E&#8202; ’here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 17:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It is well-sourced, topical, relevant, and informative.  QueenofBattle (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Frankly, there should be zero mention of it here in its own article, and we seem to have a pile of one-issue users trying to pile on a POV article. If it fits anywhere, perhaps a mention on the obama presidency. Showtime2009 (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Coatrack:"'An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate.'"Showtime2009, could you do the closing admin a favor and tag, as such, the "pile-on of SPAs," who you have discovered to be editing the article and/or !voting in this AfD?↜ (‘ Just  M &#8202;E&#8202; ’here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 18:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. Best solution is to "keep" with a paragraph about the controversy in Presidency of Barack Obama and a sentence in Barack Obama in the appropriate section. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - but this is a notable instance that might not be so in a few weeks. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability guidelines aren't written in such a way that notability is a transitive property -- if it meets the criteria set for inclusion, it can't really "un-meet" them. I think the question you mean is "is the topic encyclopedic?" (ie, will it have any significance in 5/10/100 years?)  Defining exactly what "encyclopedic" means is a subjective art; however I also believe that this certainly will have some lasting significance.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary - if something is notable now it is always notable. However if something seems important now but wont in a few weeks then it is not notable but newsworthy, and should be documented not in an encyclopaedia but in a newspaper/news website such as Wikinews. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep For reasons stated by QueenofBattle. I don't see this battle between Fox and the White House ending anytime soon. There is already enough info, and every media outlet has an opinion with plenty of good material to work with. tsheiimneken (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, the article needs to be watched (and possibly semi-protected indefinitely), but this became notable as soon as the Obama administration made it official White House policy to attempt to delegitimize the largest cable news operation in North America. This is not a minor spat (such as the pissing match between David Gregory and Dubya); this is a substantial and sustained campaign, including statements from Obama himself.  Horologium  (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "Behind the War Between White House and Fox" article by Jim Rutenberg in The New York Times October 22, 2009 If the subject can support that article, which contains considerable interesting detail, it should be developed, not deleted. Also Segment on CBS News October 23, 2009. Fred Talk 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Came to this article this morning from its link on Google News Top Stories. Wikipedia is likely seeing considerable traffic from that link.  If the article has specific problems, address the problems.  To come to the Wikipedia page, from the top of Google News, and see an effort to delete the article does not seem in Wikipedia's interest.  Fix it if it's broke, leave it be/improve it, if it isn't.Ted Clayton (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To add to Ted's comment, just because it interests me, I'll note that one of the article URLs got 963 hits on 10/21 and over 1700 on 10/22. .--Milowent (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - also came here from google news.  This is relevant and important.   Anyone with references to other times a US Administration boycotted a news organization, claimed it was not a news organization, and began to treat it as a political adversary in and of itself, please post that info.  It is new and newsworthy in my experience.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd9507 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)  — Jd9507 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - Not including tabloids such as the National Enquirer or Fox in press events is scarcely noteworthy. If the article were to be kept, we'd need to create companion articles for each of the many times that other administrations didn't interact with this or that media organization and link them all together. W was quite aggressive about freezing out media he didn't like, so we'd need, at a minimum, an article for each of those cases. Clearly, that gets ridiculous. I could, however, imagine a broader topic on media-whitehouse interactions, with this being a minor element of that larger topic, as an interesting entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.180.134 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC) — 99.30.180.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you can find citations in reliable sources that the Bush administration actively crusaded against a particular media organization, including refusing access to said media organization during a press conference (see the New York Times article cited above by Fred Bauder), then by all means go ahead and start an article on the Bush administration's press relations. However, this discussion is not about an article describing the Bush administration's relationship with the press; this is about article describing the Obama administration's relationship with Fox News, and its unprecedented and coordinated attempts to delegitimize it. When four other networks refused to attend a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar because Fox was to be excluded, that seems to indicate that the other networks don't agree with the Obama administration's position vis-a-vis Fox News. BTW, that is all detailed in the >1000 word New York Times article, which deals solely with the dispute between the administration and FNC.  Horologium  (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting my point. I quite specifically said it would be ridiculous to have separate entries for every instance of wrangling between the the various media and the various administrations. However, I suggest above, a broader topic on this sort of wrangling in general might potentially make sense. You could push for your version of reality there. Note that your reasoning for what makes this entry worth keeping is based on questionable assumptions. "Here's a different view of what actually happened." According to this Fox had no intention of attending this event, were not excluded, and no comrade-in-arms protest occurred. (One wonders, was Fox planning to "report" without bothering to gather any facts whatsoever?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.180.134 (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete There isn't an entry about the Bush administration's exclusion of MSNBC and Air America. Why start this kind of stuff now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kev11721 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)  — Kev11721 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment.Seriously, there is nothing better for these people to do other than make gimmick accounts to swing the vote? Sounds like something ACORN has their hands in...  Josh  ua In  gram   02:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I call Poe's Law on that. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I had to look that one up. Surprised that the article on Poe's Law was deleted from WP too. HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Kev11721, your "WP:OTHERSTUFF" arguments fails cos it would be perfectly OK to have WP articles about comparably notable series of events vis-a-vis the press and a US administration. (BTW here's CBS's Katie Couric & Jeff Greenfield on the current, Fox-White House tiff. --> YouTube)↜ (‘ Just  M &#8202;E&#8202; ’here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 02:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Josh, WP:AGF and it is not a vote. HyperCapitalist (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge Shorten, then merge to the Fox News Channel.--ChubsterII (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but WP:CONCEPTUALIZE beyond just this case. Most presidents have issues with certain people in the press (U.S. Presidents and the media?). I remember Bush Sr. taking issue with Dan Rather's commentary regarding the Gulf War ("..old men sending young men to die..") and then refusing to do interviews with CBS. This did not go well for Bush I, as CBS was a fairly popular newscast, and snubbing Rather seemed a bit aristocratic. (Rather's career itself was ended later through a clever little hoax set up by a Republican operative). There are several more examples of cases where Presidents take issue with certain members of the press, that offer certain general context here. It's important not to get too bogged down in current cases. This is not to say that this article was not created appropriately - often time we seed articles based on current news events and then get into the abstractions, the historical examples, tangential concepts, etc. In fact its a good thing to take current examples like these and broaden them. I may agree that this does not deserve its own article, and yet the view that this entire concept should be boiled down to a blip on the Fox News article is not valid. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a list or omnibus article titled "US Presidents and the media" would be great! Would its framework be analogous, say, to the one at "United States journalism scandals"? (And, of course, component sections on any topics that are independently notable could always be spun out into their own distinct articles, too, per WP:SS, WP:CFORK, &c &c.)↜ (‘ Just  M &#8202;E&#8202; ’here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 17:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I would support Stevertigo's proposal to rename this article and widen its coverage to U.S. Presidents and the media. This would largely remove the WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N, and WP:COATRACK issues, and also provide an opportunity to eliminate NPOV issues that come up when you look at a single presidential administration.  Kudos to Stevertigo for this idea.  Note to closing admin, for what it is worth, I am the AfD submitter and Justmeherenow (above comment) is the article's original author. HyperCapitalist (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. HyperCapitalist, if you want to amend your listing of this AFD in accord with the above approach, consider commenting under your own first comment at top. Some people go so far as to strike out prior statements when they have changed course in some way, but regardless of the value in correcting oneself explicitly, I don't make any suggestion either way on that matter. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not the place for news coverage. John Asfukzenski (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT which states that Wikipedia records the historical notability of events. Articles should be in proportion to their significance in the grand scheme of things, and shouldn't focus on passing news stories which are hyped up to gain ratings. Only after the historical notability of this event is evident will an article be appropriate.  Them From  Space  00:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If a US presidential administration as well as the legacy media covering it consider some affair or related series of incidents to be of considerable importance, whereas certain commentators think it to be something that's been merely hyped up, Wikipedia errs on the side of the preponderance of the reliable 2ndary sources, granting some coverage as well to the opinions of those pooh-poohing the importance of the issue.↜ (‘ Just  M &#8202;E&#8202; ’here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 00:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sourced, relevant, non-biased. It is for articles such as this that Wikipedia exists. 38.117.213.19 (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Based on support for using this material as part of a larger article on U.S. Presidents and the media, I have added a mergeto template to the article, and a move template to the article talk. Regards -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, a sandbox for such an article is here. --> Talk:2009 White House criticism of Fox News/U.S. Presidents and the media↜ (‘ Just  M &#8202;E&#8202; ’here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 07:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - a president with one ideology has a kerfuffle with a "news" organization of an opposing ideology? Stop the presses!  Seems a bit coatrack-ish to boot, though the fun of this one is that both anti-Obama and anti-Fox folks can use it as a launching pad against their targets.  I'd also have reservations with the creation of an overreaching "presidents and the media" article, as it seems a bit of a gluing together of minor spats spanning the century.  Notable enough in some cases to mention in appropriate articles, sure, but not as a patchwork of connected issues. Tarc (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with you on the appropriateness of this article, I do agree with you that an overarching, all-inclusive article would be a bad idea. When the topic becomes too inclusive, we end up with big, diffuse heaps of factoids (see any of the "foo in popular culture" articles), which become impossible to maintain and full of unreferenced, subjective junk. It might be a good idea to remove the "2009" from the article name, because it's likely to continue to be an issue past the end of this year, and there were clashes between the Obama camp and Fox News prior to the election (the Democratic Party primary debates come to mind; IIRC, the Obama campaign refused to debate on FNC, which eventually was canceled).  Horologium  (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Significant event of lasting historical note concerning the media relations of this Administration. WP:NOT must be placed into perspective - it is designed to ensure that events with no lasting historical notability do not appear in an encyclopedia. For a sitting administration to orchestrate a deliberate effort against a news organization in a free society is a major event, even if it's just run of the mill in other countries with less respect for freedom of speech. Coatrackish and NPOV concerns should be handled via the usual content dispute resolution procedures. Ray  Talk 16:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Given way too much space. The issue belongs as a couple of paragraphs in the main article for the fox new channel. Even if this resulted in permanent "shut out" of TFNC it would only deserve its own article if the other organizations in The White House press pool objected to its exclusion. So far it seems that this is not the case and therefore this is just a proverbial storm in a tea cup (with or without its tea-bag).--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Fox News Channel gets into a lot of controversies.  If every one of them were given "a couple of paragraphs" in the main FNC article, that article would be far too long, and with too much weight on the controversies. JamesMLane t c 04:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I vote to delete, but after reading some of the posts here, I can see that at best we are going to get NO CONSENSUS again. So I figure we may as well start on next years article. (No reason to put off for tomorrow what can be done today)). Sure why not. I can see it becoming WP:GA by Christmas.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:NOTE. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Merger into another article, such as the one on the Obama presidency or even the one on FNC controversies, would entail either full-scale incorporation (creating a problem of undue weight because of the length of the section on this topic) or extremely selective incorporation (losing much information).  Keep this article per WP:SS with a brief summary and wikilink in any other article where it's appropriate.  The same applies if U.S. presidents and the media is created -- such an article could not cover every President-versus-media dispute in this level of detail, so it would most sensibly be structured as a general outline containing overall observations, with wikilinks to more specific articles like this one. JamesMLane t c 04:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly prefer merge, but keep otherwise I'm honestly surprised that a page like "U.S. Presidents and the media" does not exist. HyperCapitalist and others have presciently pointed out how useful such a page would be. This controversy here would be best discussed someplace like there. If there's no other option, I would support leaving this article as is. The Squicks (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Obama-Presidency This is actually a measurable policy decision on the part of the Obama White House. I think most of the pundits at Fox are lunatics, but not a lot moreso than those on the left. Singling out one network (apparently) because they were covering stories with a negative spin for The White House is worth a note in his presidential entry on Wikipedia. Do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.216.64 (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)  — 71.109.216.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete or merge. WP:NOT; this is a minor controversy, and although it may be covered in WP:RSs, it is not encyclopedic. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT --Tocino 01:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not news, perhaps a sentence in the presidency article would be fitting. Hekerui (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This has not only received enough coverage, but is the subject of an increasing amount of commentary; definitely satisfies WP:NOTE. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Split and merge into Presidency of Barack Obama and Fox News Channel controversies as per above.  bahamut0013  words deeds  05:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Criticisms that crop up within the natural course of politics are not necessary to cover in article form.  There should be some mention of this within the context of Fox News Channel.  Arguably, there might be some place to mention it in connection with the Obama administration, but an article is too much.  Croctotheface (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable set of events within Obama's first year. Give it time to sort out. Jwesley78 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Recentism, coatracking, not terribly noteworthy in the vast scheme of things. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (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.