Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy and criticism of The X Factor


 * 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 The X Factor (TV series). The consensus is that this should not be a stand alone article. Any content which meets our general editing policies can be added to the main article; I leave the specifics up to interested editors. Note that while I'm closing this as a merge, if the decision on the main article is that nothing is worthy of being merged, that is an acceptable result. That is, I'm saying that content can be merged if appropriate, and this should not be construed as a requirement to merge any given piece of info. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism of The X Factor

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article is nothing more than re-hashed newspaper articles and interview statements. Any notable criticisms could easily fit into the main articles. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  05:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge sections into The X Factor (TV series), The X Factor (U.S.), etc. Some of these events, e.g. the legal dispute, certainly should be mentioned. I don't know why the proposer demands it be deleted and then suggests merging content, though - which does he/she want? --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge was the wrong word for me to use. Any notable criticisms (which I don't think there are any others may disagree) can go in the article. As it stands all the events in the article are just transient news stories with no long term significance. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  08:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - a woefully short and forgettable article, in comparison with Controversy and criticism of The X Factor (UK), but aren't most Wikipedia articles "re-hashed" news? The controversies are newsworthy and of popular interest. Sionk (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Have you ever read any of the scientific topics on WP? Or technology, military, etc? Anything of the pre-2000 stuff? *cough* They are hardly re-hashed news. Assorted topics: Uranium Solar system Eugene Stoner Fermat number Disambiguation (disambiguation)(j/k). If you think my topics are biased, click "Random article" 10 times and look at what shows up. The notion that "most Wikipedia articles [are] "re-hashed" news" is way off. It is neither the way it is nor the way it should be. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 11:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've either misunderstood my comment, or the purpose of this AfD discussion. Many WP articles are based on 'rehashed' published news sources, particularly those involving reality TV. Sionk (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with Controversy and criticism of The X Factor (UK). I think they can stand as a separate article, but I think the separate page for the UK version is full of almost fancruft-esque material. --Shadow (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete (see my delete position below) - POV fork of The X Factor (UK), which is where such information belongs. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with Controversy and criticism of The X Factor (UK). Both articles are rather shaky individually, so adding the contents of the UK criticisms page to the page currently being discussed should create a more comprehensive and useful page overall. --SUFC Boy 16:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are no Wikipedia reliable sources independent of the Controversy and criticism of The X Factor topic to show that the topic meets WP:GNG. In other words, third parties commenting on the The X Factor television show do not themselves provide source material that is independent of the Controversy and criticism of The X Factor topic, merely because they are independent of the The X Factor topic. The sources for the above AfD nominated topic need to be independent of the Controversy and criticism made about The X Factor to count towards WP:GNG. In other words, you would need newspaper articles, books, magazines articles, etc. that write about those commenting on The X Factor to make this topic meet WP:GNG to justify a stand alone article. For example, the "BBC News (BBC) 23 November 2005" reference used in the Wikipedia Controversy and criticism of The X Factor article may provide comment on controversy and criticism of The X Factor, but that does not make it independent of the comments they provide. For this topic, you would need another reliable source that writes about the information provided in the BBC News (BBC) 23 November 2005 news article. There is not enough sources indpendent of those commenting on the controversy and criticism of The X Factor to justify a stand alone article under WP:GNG. Accordingly, delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a content fork. Establishing the notability of the main series requires a discussion of both praise and criticism. Isn't this what the main article should be about? Spinning off a pure criticism article is both a WP:POVFORK and WP:UNDUE weight. A more balanced and proportional way to cover this is in the main article, in context with praise, and in context with the program as a whole. Vcessayist (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2012 (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.