Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)


 * 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   keep. Although this would have very likely ended in a WP:SNOW keep, the nominator has withdrawn the AfD. - auburn pilot   talk  01:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Many bolp violations, pov fork, content is not encyclopedia material, most of the content is OR and not notable. This article clearly violate bolp and npov. From BOLP "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." About half of the sources used fall under that category, (media matters is by far the most used source) and many of the rest are manipulated by the original editor to reflect their opinions, a violation of WP:OR. Even disregarding the unacceptable sources most of the sections do not belong in a encyclopedia. On bolp noticeboard all editors that were uninvolved agreed with my claims. Past discussions on the topic had similar results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive55#Criticism_of_Bill_O.27Reilly. - Fru23 (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a bad-faith nomination by a single-purpose-account editor who is pushing a one-man crusade against consensus and who has twice been blocked for edit-warring on the subject in the one month (as of today) that he has been on wikipedia. The BLP argument is bogus. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please look at the BOLP noticeboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive55#Criticism_of_Bill_O.27Reilly The editors of the article were the only people who disagreed with me. EVERYONE else thought the article pov pushing/poorly sourced and should deleted. Fru23 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete BOLP Fru23 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment And ever time it is the articles own editors pushing it through. If you are going to allow super partisan source like media matters in Bios, wikipedia will soon have a lot more worthless articles filled with inane criticism. Fru23 (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, and perhaps even speedy keep. Bugs is correct that the nominator here is not interested in collaborating or reaching consensus, just getting his own way.  This article has gone through FIVE previous AfDs, not three, and it has survived each one before.  At what point does yet another nomination just become unnecessary disruption?  On the merits, the article is not perfect, but it is exhaustively sourced and edited by a diverse group of individuals who are, by and large, not pursuing any agenda other than improving the encyclopedia.   Objections to the quality of the sources is a cleanup argument, not a deletion argument.  Croctotheface (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)::


 * Comment I understand that I am supposed to comment on the content and not the contributor. However, I feel the contributor in this particular instance taints the entire process. Fru23 has been on an endless crusade against this article and others related to the subject by claiming violations of WP:BLP and poor sourcing. However, Fru23 has resorted to outright lies in defense of his position, claiming that proper reliable sources do not exist, when if fact they do . Fru23 has also deleted sourced information by falsely claiming the info is not in the source.  . Most damning is his abject refusal to engage in actual discussion to improve the articles rather than constant wikilawyering-- this AfD being the last in a long line of attempt to push a POV. There may be several problems in the current form of the article. However, I would prefer to allow responsible editors to hash out their differences to present an improved article, rather than have it deleted it because of the work of a POV pusher. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as a bad faith nomination. Nominator has a clear history of pushing an agenda and no constructive contributions.  Also note he appears to have "!voted" twice. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Assume good faith, stop attacking me, everyone who has voted so far is an editor of the article. Fru23 (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That could be construed as a bad-faith, personal attack. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As well as untrue. Clearly the reason "only editors" have responded so far is because the article is on our collective watch lists, and you have failed to properly template on the AfD page. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep After reading the associated discussion pages, this is clearly a nomination that fails to bring up any new points in comparison to the previous AFDs. Consensus can change, but not if you just bring up the same argument over and over. All the previous discussion has affirmed time and again that the rationale used by the nominator doesn't cut it. The article as a whole is an extremely notable and valuable topic for readers, with plenty of reliable source material to draw from. If there are particulars of the article you don't feel meet the requirements of BLP, then work with others to fix them. But deletion of a vital treatment of a media pundit's place in the public sphere is not a solution. Steven Walling (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy KeepRehashing proven wrong arguments, Bad-Faith nomination. Fru has admitted somewhere that his/her entire goal is to delete the article one way or another, be it slow censorship, BloP noticeboard, or AfD (I don't know where the exact diff is), this is just more forum shopping. Fru23 has also previously admitted to being a employee of Bill O'reilly on IRC (although Fru23 Retracted it, but looking at the contributions of Fru, I don't see any notable differences in actions)) &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  01:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, POV forks are allowed if the content was significantly long on the main page, and the main page (Bill O'reilly) has a balanced view, as does the criticism page having a balanced coverage of biased views. I've stated this again and again to Fru23, as have others. He just refuses to Get the point. Copied from previous discussion:
 * NPOV
 * Content forking
 * Content forking
 * Biographies of living persons (Note: See the content forking policy as to why the article on criticism exists, a NPOV summary is on the main BOR page (or should be)) &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  01:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

More apologies for focusing on the contributor, however these edits  lay out in a clear fashion the kind of POV warrior Fru23 is. Please end this farce with a speedy keep. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say that Fru23's attacking of Media Matters is funny given how the Presidential Transition team has cited Media Matters. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  01:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He just erased "I HATE POV PUSHERS" from his page, apparently in the mistaken belief that he could hide his agenda from scrutiny. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right I was wrong, apparently sources like mediamatters and newsbusters are allowed. I retract my afd. Fru23 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC).


 * Keep. Having read all of the comments above, and Fru23's ill-tempered responses, the case for this being a bad faith nomination is convincing.  Yet another edit-warrior we do not need. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  01:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close Nominator has withdrawn nomination. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  01:38, 12 December 2008 (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.