Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill O'Reilly sexual harassment lawsuit


 * 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   merge to Bill O'Reilly (commentator). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly sexual harassment lawsuit

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Failed WP:N Soxwon (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The lawsuit plainly satisfies WP:N.  There are many, many articles, chapters in books, and so forth dedicated to the topic.  It has received coverage for a long stretch of time, too.  Croctotheface (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unnecessary WP:UNDUE weight given to a scandal. What is in the main article is a paragraph in length, which is a sufficient summary of the matter.  Remember that we're not here to debate the tired canards of "its reliably sourced!" and whatnot. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:POVFORK. THF (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A search of Google Books for o'reilly mackris harassment indicates that there has been quite a bit written in reliable books, so WP:NOTNEWS doesn't seem to apply and the notability criterion is met. *** Crotalus *** 21:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, because books like "I Hate O'Reilly" and "The man who won't shut up" are obviously neutral and totally one-hundred percent fact driven. Soxwon (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And what about the other 48 books? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 10:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's sourced, it's got lots of history, the people are real and notable, but I see no reason why this should be an article in its own right. Do the logical thing, and merge it into Billo's article. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Two keeps, three deletes, one merge, so six !votes, which is a fairly decent turnout for an AFD, but it's just not a real high-quality discussion. Can we get some more commentary? Thanks. Courcelles 10:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Meh Sure it could be merged into Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator), but it would be totally valid to then split it off in to a new article per WP:SPLIT. However the article is quite short, and I'm not sure much more could be written, so it might be WP:UNDUE to retain it. It's one of those borderline cases. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm no fan of O'Reilly, but I don't see a need for a separate article, and the main reason is that the O'Reilly page has had a section about the lawsuit since 2004. If it appeared that there was a problem of fans trying to erase mention of anything negative from Bill O'Reilly's article, that might be different, but a review of the history says otherwise.  Wikipedia is more of a "no spin zone" than the O'Reilly Factor.  The other consideration is that there isn't much more information here than there is in the O'Reilly article.  Bottom line is that she sued him, and there was a large settlement, the terms of which remained confidential, and there are links that "inquiring minds" can follow to learn more. Mandsford 13:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to include information in main article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Meerge to the article about O'Reilly. The present section in the article leaves out important details that numerous reliable sources have included, such as the expressed longings relating to the female and his "loofa" and "falafel." Edison (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that other important details can be added without the usual merge discussion and the "merge to" and "merge from" tags that get placed on the talk pages. People can argue the need for loofah fantasies and falafel code words on the talk page.  Only one of the links seems to work  and its already at Bill O'Reilly (political commentator); the thesmokinggun.com links for loofah and falafel simply lead to today's pages  and, so someone who cares might want to fix them so that they can be added.  Mandsford 17:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;Clearly a sub-topic page. The subject is sufficiently notable.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Mentioned in all the biographies, and too big for the main article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG, adequately met. Merges can be always discussed later but it has no bearing in an AfD. Arguments based on WP:UNDUE make no sense, because UNDUE relates to content within an article, not to content between multiple articles. If anything, the existence of a split article helps to ease WP:UNDUE concerns in the main O'Reilly article, while allowing us to enter into the issue in detail. -- Cycl o pia talk  02:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Bill O'Reilly (commentator). The original article is not very long, it seems it could easily cover the topic, too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Bill O'Reilly (commentator) as per Joy. Not nearly too big for the article and nice compromise between deleting and keeping. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:08, 24 December 2010 (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.