Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination)


 * 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   RESULT: Merge and redirect. Editors will have two weeks to find appopriate destinations for merge-worthy content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Yes, I know this has been nominated for deletion before, but it's been a few months since the last try, so let's see if consensus has changed. The fundamental problem with this article is that it is a POV fork. Yes, the assertions in this article are sourced, but that doesn't change the fact that this article is designed to lump all the negative things about O'Reilly in one place. O'Reilly is a very controversial public figure &mdash; which is why notable criticisms of him should be incorporated throughout his main article, not sequestered into a fork. Having an article that consists entirely of criticism seems inconsistent with the spirit of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. We don't (and shouldn't) have a Praise of Bill O'Reilly article, and I don't see a "criticism" article as any better. Yes, I know that "criticism" can technically refer to either positive or negative reception, but that's not how the term is used here, it's not what the article contains, and it's not the case for any other Wikipedia article that begins with "Criticism of...". In my opinion they should all be redirected or deleted. *** Crotalus *** 19:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As much as I would like to see this trimmed and added to the main article, the current volume of information would make the main article far too large. Soxwon (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's something of a false dilemma. The choice isn't limited to a separate article or merger into the parent article. This is Articles for Deletion, after all, so deletion is an option, also. Granted, there's a conceptual difference between articles and content, but the content ordinarily goes to the grave with the article. It doesn't follow that if the fork article is deleted, the content must go back to the mothership in part or whole (cf. my comment at Articles for deletion/Resignation of Sarah Palin (arguing that I had added material to the fork that I would delete if added to the main article because of WP:DETAIL)). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While some of the content might not deserve weight in light of his biography, much of it would. We're talking about matters that have received coverage sufficient to merit their own article, at least per WP:N.  Much, if not all, of the content is both verifiable and illuminating enough that it deserves weight in the encyclopedia.  When so much of the coverage in reliable sources deals with criticism and controversy, attempting to reduce that to "O'Reilly is sometimes criticized" has the effect of whitewashing the record, which is not neutral writing.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're alleging that this AfD is censorship I think you're overstating the importance of the events listed on this page. Some have made it through a news cycle in the mainstream press, but that's notability by technicality, not significance.  Considering that the subject's reason for existence is to give voice to unpleasant but popularly held opinions, detailing every time someone has been offended seems more like appropriate summarizing rather than "hiding the WP:TRUTH."  It may be helpful to cover this information in a section on the content of the program, since saying what many see as offensive is a reasonable part of that content.  These just happen to be a sampling of those events.  SDY (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When did I say "censorship"? Where do you get that from; is it just easier to argue against me if you try to paint me as crying censorship?  My argument is that getting rid of the content would not be neutral writing because so much of O'Reilly's significance comes, as you acknowledge, from dealing in controversy.  And we could fill an entire encyclopedia, not just one article, if we detailed "every time" O'Reilly was criticized, so that straw man is not convincing in the least.  The article details the highlights, and they're very illuminating about O'Reilly's character, the way he's perceived, and so forth.  They belong in WP one way or another.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please calm down. I tend to associate "whitewashing" with hiding pertinent facts, which is censorship.  I wholly disagree that these are important topics for wikipedia to cover, but then again I feel that way about most pop culture articles.  SDY (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any lack of calmness there, but if there is, it's because I don't take kindly to having my words and views misrepresented, which you did twice. As far as "censorship," I'd never use that term for what another editor does.  I suppose it would be possible for an admin to engage in "censorship" by abusing the tools, but without some kind of official power, there really can be no censorship here.  There can certainly be whitewashing, which is what would happen if we ignored or minimized the degree of negative reception that O'Reilly has received.  Setting aside the issue of pop culture on WP, if O'Reilly the pop culture figure is notable enough to receive an article, then notable events surrounding him, including controversy and criticism, should go into that article.  Croctotheface (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no need to be so defensive. It's just wikipedia.  I simply use a broader definition of censorship.  I wholeheartedly agree that some sort of coverage of the criticism he has received is appropriate, but like all criticism it should be covered in the context of the main article, not in a fork.  SDY (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. It is a POV fork, like most other "criticism of.." articles, which as the nominator says, are designed to lump all the negative things in one place. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - This vote looks like a complete 180 regarding "Criticism of ..." entries from less than two weeks ago. How do you explain that?  Next time a "Criticism of [insert subject you're not a fan of]" AfD comes around will you vote delete with the above rationale?  Surely criticism of Bill O'Reilly is more notable and expansive than criticism of the Council for American-Islamic Relations.  So what happened?PelleSmith (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I haven't looked at it closely but it's not necessarily a POV fork. From WP:SPLIT: If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split is carried out. The main article is 26KB long. This article is 32KB long. — Rankiri (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: WP:CRIT isn't policy, but it has useful things to say. "'Criticism of ....' articles/sections would seem to inherently advocate the critics' negative point of view," it warns. While there's "no consensus whether "Criticism of .... " articles/sections in general are always POV forks, especially if balanced by an article/section describing positive evaluation and influence. It also a concern that often these articles or sections quickly degrade into POV complaints or condemnation about a topic, known as 'POV magnets.'"

It's unfortunate that the previous AFDs seem to have been battlegrounds with almost no engagement on the merits of the nomination, because there's a case to be made that this article should be deleted either because it inherently a POV fork or because in practice it will almost inescapably function as one. I'm not ready to vote either way yet, but to my mind this does look like a POV fork. Although NPOV problems aren't by themselves a reason for deletion, the question I think we should ask in such situations is this: if the salvageable material from the fork were in the main article, would I be inclined to remove it for violating one policy or another (paradigmatically NPOV and/or WP:UNDUE? If the answer's yes, a fork basically consisting of such material with perhaps some air blown in for appearances should be deleted. I haven't yet decided what my answer to that question is, but if you have, that should decide your position. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:POVFORK: There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if [it] must be used, make sure that [...] is not entirely negative.


 * Perhaps it can be renamed into something like Perception of Bill O'Reilly (although we do have a big number of "Criticism of" articles on WP), but the article looks well-sourced and Google Books definitely shows notability of the subject: ,,,, etc. — Rankiri (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't simply renaming it in such a way instantly create problem under WP:UNDUE? All the content in a page putatively about the perception of O'Reilly would be critical of him! ;) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it gets renamed (Public image of Bill O'Reilly?), we have , discussion pages and various editing methods to deal with more minor issues of possible partiality. Personally, I disagree that all criticisms are necessarily subjective or biased. As long as they are justified, balanced and fully documented by reliable sources, I have nothing against keeping the article or leaving its name unchanged. — Rankiri (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're saying that a page about the public's perception of O'Reilly would skew negative, doesn't that suggest that there isn't a neutrality issue with having negative information? If the reality is that much of his perception is negative, there should be no issue with accurately representing that reality.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And there should be no issue with representing it while writing about the subject matter -- Bill O'Reilly. Separate entries forking content are not the solution to POV wars on main entries.PelleSmith (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article has been nominated numerous times and produced very strong "keep" results each time.  (I know consensus can change, but if Soxwon is voting keep, I don't think that's happened here.)  There is not a better way to present this content.  Most of the time O'Reilly receives mainstream coverage, it's in the context of some controversy or criticism.  Whitewashing his biography such that we pretend otherwise would be completely unacceptable.  The only other alternative would be to drop all this content in his main bio, and that would totally overwhelm what's there.  The current form is the way to go; I'd be fine with retiling the article if that's what people object to.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily, I think that a previous AFD resulting in a keep provides a very strong presumption against deletion (see, e.g., my comments at Articles for deletion/Allie DiMeco (2nd nomination)). But in this instance, the previous AFDs for this article have focused exclusively on the motives of the nominator rather than the merits of the nomination. That robs the earlier AFDs of any kind of precedential force on the merits of deleting the article. As to the theory that we have to merge some of this content back into the article if we delete it: not so. See my reply to Soxwon above. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge any relevant material to the main entry - "Criticism of ..." entries are a problem in general and this is no exception. If "criticism of" something is notable enough it should go into the main entry in all due weight relative to the subject matter.  The only way to balance criticism properly is to do it in relation to the the subject matter itself which cannot be done adequately when a separate entry is created.  POV forks like this unbalance the encyclopedia's entire coverage of a given topic.  They are also lazy solutions usually created because critical POV pushers want to add more negative material while POV pushing fans want to keep the negative material away from the entry itself.  In response to Croctotheface, I agree that his biography should not be "whitewashed".  Quite the opposite.PelleSmith (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Seeing as there's not a "criticism of" page for any other political pundit, I just see it as a POV fork. If there was one for Olbermann that was just as long, I might not protest this...PokeHomsar (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "If there was one for Olbermann ..." would not be a good reason to keep.  Also a political tit for tat with no relation to actual notability of said criticism is likewise undesirable given several policies here.PelleSmith (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not policy, and shouldn't be. They represent (at least in my own view) one of the most harmful quasi-norms on Wikipedia, the discouragement of analogical reasoning and the similar treatment of similar articles, with no countervailing benefit that I can see. Similar articles should be treated alike, and according to neutral principles, otherwise we get a kind of meta-POV problem. Accordingly, an argument that "article X exists, so why doesn't article Y" should be evaluated on its own merits, not met with a blithe citation of WAX as a sort of wikipedian thought-terminating cliché. That isn't to say that such arguments are always persuasive. I see users offering bad analogical reasoning all the time here, and I suspect that's where the concept got a bad name on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, although a given (and often unadorned) "if x, why not y" argument may not be persuasive, I object to WAX's abstraction from "that's an argument that's often ill-taken" to "that's an argument that's never valid." In this instance, User:PokeHomsar makes a perfectly good analogy: Olberman seems to be comparable, and is just as much of a creep y asshole vel non as O'Reilly (I think more so, but I'm a conservative; you may well think less so, but pause to think about how you voted in 2008), and evokes similar partisan reaction. So why isn't it a good argument to say that no comparable page exists for Olberman? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from using "a**hole" to describe living persons, even in delete discussions. The problem with PokeHomsar's comment is not simply related to an out of context evaluation of the usefulness of "analogical reasoning".  For "if X, why not Y" to be helpful here we have to assume that X is valid in the first place.  X and Y may instead be equally invalid.  Beyond this other problems exist.  The criteria by which X and Y are lumped together may be anywhere from dubious to completely meaningless.  Likewise, even if the criteria is meaningful, X may be notable but Y may not be.  This is what I was getting into in the second sentence.  PokeHomsar's comment insinuates the usefulness of a political tit for tat regardless of notability.  That would violate a number of policies as you well know.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Any criticisms of O'Reilly should be addressed in his article. Obviously as a "shock jock" he has said all sorts of controversial things, but that could be abridged.  We should not have articles like this.  Put back legitimate criticism into the article and take out the rest.  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm curious about your presumption here that some criticism mentioned in the article is not legitimate. I suspect that much (and perhaps all) of the criticism there has received enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the notability guideline.  I'm not saying that each item should get its own article, but the fact that there is so much criticism that merits coverage is precisely the reason that putting it all back into the main bio would be unwise.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that putting the material back into the main bio would be unwise, at least as anything more than a paragraph or two. But that is not an argument against deleting this article. See my reply to Soxwon above (noting that we aren't obliged to find a home for content from a deleted article). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to assume good faith and not read this as an attempted "gotcha." Your argument is, it appears, that we should not have the content.  My argument is that we should have the content (especially considering that all or at least much of it is not only verifiable, but has notability per WP:N) but that it is better presented in its current form than within the biography article.  Unless you're going to begin with my premise that we should keep the content, the fact that the biography is a less desirable location than a separate article does not support your position.  The fact remains that much of the time O'Reilly is covered by reliable sources, it's because of some sort of criticism or controversy or feud.  Ignoring that would, as I said elsewhere in this discussion, have the effect of whitewashing his biography.  It's not really the case that this guy is notable as a TV personality and has occasionally been involved in controversies; much of his notability comes from being involved with (and courting) controversy.  Reducing the overwhelming thrust of his coverage to "nothing more than a paragraph or two" would not be neutral writing.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My position is not that the content should be dumped, but that we should not take it as a given that it must be retained. It does not follow that if this article is deleted the content - in part or whole - must be merged back into the main article. I disagree that criticisms of O'Reilly can't be covered in a paragraph or two - as I and other editors have point out, it can be covered in a sentence or two, so a fortiori a paragraph or two. The movie Titanic expends more than two hours telling this story: "the ship hits an iceberg and sinks, causing the deaths of most passengers." We should aim for a happy midpoint between those extremes. Detailed exposition is not necessary beyond the point where adding words stops adding illumination, and in the case of this article, that point can be reached very, very quickly. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete same reasons as LoverOfTheRussianQueen above. Bytebear (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename To avoid POV fork maybe it should be renamed "controversies of Bill O'Reilly". Wapondaponda (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge back into Bill O'Reilly and prune to fit. It is, was and will always be a well protected POV fork in the current form. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's tricky, but I don't think this is a POV fork, mostly on the grounds that the subject matter can (admittedly with difficulty) be covered in a NPOV way the same way it can be in an article. In fact, I think a good portion of the article already covers the criticisms decently: saying exactly what each side stated while generally avoiding most words to avoid and withholding synthesized judgment. You could go through any of the material within this article and see that it would also fit in the main Bill O'Reilly article, so it's really more of a plain-old split than a POV fork. POV forks are only articles composed of material that is so inherently POV'd that it couldn't withstand to be within the main article. Perhaps you are worried that readers will get the idea that Bill O'Reilly is highly controversial and heavily criticized, but that is verifiably and undeniably true. I am ambivalent about the name-change idea to "Controversy of", but it doesn't sound like a bad idea. – DroEsperanto(t / c) 04:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that O'Reilly is "highly controversial and heavily criticized." Therefore, notable controversy and criticism should be incorporated throughout his main article, not sequestered into another article that treats these criticisms in isolation. If this means that it takes up a substantial portion of the main article, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as it reflects the way that O'Reilly has been discussed in reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 12:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly.PelleSmith (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Treated in isolation from what, exactly? From context? On the contrary, I think that the article in many places does a decent job of providing sufficient context, and if it doesn't presently, it can in the future. As for merging it, having the large amount of content in this article simply appended to "Bill O'Reilly" would make that article way too large and unwieldy, and all the content in this article is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, so deleting some of it to make it smaller to merge in with "Bill O'Reilly" would be a bad idea. – DroEsperanto(t / c) 22:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The content, which meets all inclusion criteria


 * Delete. I see this an unneeded POV Fork. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Soxwon. Crafty (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you recommend to delete, please also comment on the quality of the article's content. Considering that the split seems perfectly valid under WP:SPLIT, we can't just delete the entire article because of its arguably controversial title if most of its content is well-sourced and not quite inappropriate. See Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles, Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) — Rankiri (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming it's a valid split, why not? And one could argue that it isn't a valid split, also. Pedantically, there's no way it could be a "perfectly valid" split, because it didn't conform to WP:SPLIT, which mandates that "the new page should be created with an edit summary noting "split content from article name". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.)" (Emphasis in original.) That wasn't done: . But I'll set that aside. The more important point is that the criterion for a valid split is the size of the parent article: too large and a split is justified. Presumably, then, your argument that this was a valid split must rest on adding the byte count from the two articles and consulting the "article size" table. That is only a valid methodology on the assumption that the fork must be merged back into the parent article in toto. That assumption doesn't hold here, however. Even assuming that plain old deletion isn't an option (which it is), as User:The Four Deuces and User:Kyaa the Catlord have pointed out above, there is ample room for a substantial pruning and compressing. Thus, we have no way of knowing ex ante whether this is a valid split, because the criterion for a valid split is article length, and we can't know whether the O'Reilly would be too long without attempting to merge the content from the fork into the parent article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. I'm not opposing merging or renaming. I'm concerned that a lot of seemingly valid information is not replicated by the main page and that it wouldn't be sensible to just discard it all in one single move. As for WP:SPLIT, we really don't want to be that bureaucratic. — Rankiri (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As to merger, I'm not against deleting the whole thing, but we should realize that if we decide to merge, the article could be reduced to a single sentence, "O'Reilly has received significant criticism for yadda yadda yadda," followed by a string of forty footnotes. Something less extreme may also be possible. The point is that no matter what the outcome here, we don't have to find a home for all this content in the main article: we can delete, prune, or more-or-less radically truncate both the sourcing and the article text.
 * As to WP:BURO, see WP:PIMP. WP:SPLIT contains mandatory language; if what it purports to mandate is in fact merely advisory, it should be re-written to reflect that. Otherwise we create a zone of administrative discretion to punish users who ignore the requirement when the administrator doesn't like the edit, relying on SPLIT, or not, when they when they like the edit, relying on BURO. Users must be able to rely on policy being enforced evenhandedly, and while I have no beef with policy being enforced as a construct of both its letter and animating purpose -- I agree with much of The Legal Process and that much of it has applicability to Wikipedia -- nothing in the underlying purpose of SPLIT undermines the text of its requirement. The procedural requirement serves the purpose, acting as a clear statement rule: a split is good, but a fork is often bad and a POV fork is always bad, yet all three look the same. How should we tell them apart? When a user follows the procedural rules of SPLIT, they demonstrate that they have thought through the implications and tension between SPLIT and WP:CFORK, and establishes a presumption that they have performed a valid split rather than an invalid fork. This is more than pedantry: process matters. It helps the community understand what has been done and why when the issue comes up months or years later in a setting like this one, which is a jumping-off point for these discussions. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia talk:Splitting. I still think that this can be seen as a minor technicality. — Rankiri (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a couple of users throwing the issue back and forth on a talk page. It's interesting, but it's not conclusive, let alone authoritative. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete-article is in effect POVfork. Many of the incidents of criticism in the article though reliably sourced and significant can be mentioned briefly in the bio article without violating the undue weight provisions of NPOV or BLP. Further, although analytical articles regarding notable figures theoretically may have some encyclopedic value, practical experience has shown that wikipedia editors do not have the restraint or expertise or ability to do so and thus these kinds of articles should be avoided. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - despite the attempts at revisionist history, this article exists as a split due to size considerations -- not as a POV fork (read the definitions). O'Reilly generates lots of controversy.  This article went through a massive rewrite not long ago that culled out the content that doesn't meet with our inclusion guidelines -- WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc.  Given that the content herein meets with those policies, there is absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be included in an article about O'Reilly.  The  only  reason it doesn't exist in the parent article is due to size.  The only reason this article should be deleted is if all the content is put into the main biography.  Since that obviously violates the article size guideline, it exists here.  It seems there have been a lot of knee-jerk "Criticism of == POV fork" reactions, when this just isn't the case.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree here, and I think it's worth reiterating something Blaxthos says: there is a consensus that everything that's currently in the article belongs there. It's hard to argue that the content doesn't belong when it's so richly sourced that most if not all of the controversies could pass muster at WP:N.  There's going to be a major size issue if the article is not kept.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment- Just as an FYI-- but this is actually the fifth AFD nomination for this article, as there were two others prior to the name change. They can be found here and here.  I am not sure how to get them added to the list at the top. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Rankiri (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: I think it's important to distinguish here between "delete" votes that really want the article deleted, page history removed and all, and those who are saying "delete" but instead are advocating a merge. Considering that there seems to be a consensus, all else aside, that whatever happens we should keep much of the content, it would be unwise to get rid of the page history.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Despite the multiple accusations in POV forking, no one actually presented any evidence that the article's content is biased or factually incorrect. There were some concerns about the name, but WP:POVFORK clearly states that we have no consensus on whether all "Criticism of..." articles are necessarily POV forks. It's most certainly not the only "Criticism of..." article on WP, and I really don't believe that we can just delete the entire page because of its title—particularly with much more sensible alternatives like renaming. As I said before, the article's existence is valid under WP:SPLIT, which specifically suggests that [if] a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split is carried out.
 * Relevant policies and guidelines: WP:SUBSTANTIATE, WP:SUMMARY, What POV forking is not: Article spinouts, WP:BLP. — Rankiri (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the relevant policies unequivocally say that this page is not a POV FORK. Of course there is no consensus on whether or not all "Criticism of" pages are POV Forks.  If there was there would be no discussion here or at other related AfD discussions.  But that does not invalidate the opinions of other editors who believe it is a POV Fork.  Consensus or no consensus I personally believe that 99.9% of these entries are POV Forks, and no policy or guideline tells me I'm either right or wrong.  WP:POVFORK is no trump card for keeping these pages.  It merely says there is no consensus.  Hopefully consensus changes so that we can deal with criticism adequately at main entries pretty much across the board.PelleSmith (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Analogously, just because the policies don't say that it's not a POV fork, it doesn't mean that it is. From WP:CFORK: If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ. As I said earlier, I see no actual evidence that that's the case. Also, consensus can change is not the best possible reason for nominating an article that successfully survived four six previous AfD discussions. I want actual arguments, not unsupported accusations based solely on the article's title. — Rankiri (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is another non-argument. I never said that policies clearly state it is a POV Fork.  We disagree about whether or not this is a POV Fork.  No policy validates either your or my opinion about whether or not it is and while I do not claim your opinion is invalid you claim mine is.  Regarding your quoted text I'll offer a rather different interpretation.  There is a claim that this entry needs to exist because of its size -- per WP:SPLIT.  Along with this claim is the assumption that nothing can be done about the size.  Well as I just stated below, as an outside observer this entry looks like it is filled with excessive and trivial detail.  It can easily be halved if not more, while retaining the same "amount" of notable criticism.  While it is notable that O'Reilly recieves this amount of criticism, the details of every example are not notable but usually rather trivial.PelleSmith (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks like a valid editorial concern that should be expressed on the discussion page but not a proper argument for merging or deleting. Does the article include consensus-dodging content? Does it show any signs of persistent disruptive editing? Does the article's content unambiguously violate WP:NPOV? Is it in any way inconsistent with Wikipedia's core policies? If the answer to these questions is no, we have no right to either merge or delete the article in question. Additionally, it turns out that the page was in fact created as a valid split from the main article. See,  — Rankiri (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide substantiation for your claim that we have "no right" to merge an article unless it violates policy. We merge articles all the time because of editorial judgment that they would be better off if they were incorporated into another article. *** Crotalus *** 16:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is not on me. See HELP:Merging and WP:Merging and WP:Deletion policy. — Rankiri (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, or low-level merge the nomination is spot-on. This is just an anti O'Reilly POV fork however you spin it. Little, if no, effort has been put into making it neutral and it never will. If this focused on critical and academic reception of his radio show, maybe. But this is a collection of indiscriminate grievances about the man which is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline Sceptre (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I gotta call bullshit here: "Little, if no, effort has been put into making it neutral" -- either Sceptre is intentionally misrepresenting the facts, or he never bothered looking, but in either case he's just plain wrong.  Please consider the difference seen here.  The article, in the last few months, has been massively rewritten and many, many editors participated in the rewrite to keep this article both properly sourced and neutrally presented.  I really can't comprehend how such a statement can be made, especially given that it was trimmed to half its previous size.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To those familiar with the entry it may look trim in comparison to older versions, but to a newcomer it looks like it is filled with excessive and trivial detail. I say this as someone who thinks O'Reilly is a right wing demagogue deserving of the enormous amount of criticism leveled at him.  Accurately reflecting the "amount" of criticism he notably gets, however, does not necessitate the amount of detail in this entry.  Sheer text size could be cut in half or more rather easily while retaining the basic nature of each instance of criticism reported within.  The shorter version should be merged into the main entry.PelleSmith (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is specific content you think is inappropriate, I encourage you to take issue with it on the talk page. Having participated in the discussions regarding this article for many years, and having worked with several editors with whom I may not always agree to help trim this article of insignificant or improperly sourced criticism, I have to ask you (PelleSmith):  what policies you believe warrants deleting this article entirely?  In your rationale for "merge and delete" above, you say that "content should be merged into the main article".  I don't see any content that fails our content inclusion policies (OR, NPOV, RS), and as others have also noted, most of these incidents have enough sourcing to pass WP:N for their own articles.  If we merge all this into the main article, we violate WP:SIZE.  Again:  not every "Criticism of..." article is a POV fork; there can be legitimate sub-articles based on WP:POVFORK and WP:SIZE -- can you agree to that statement?  If so, and you can't give policy examples of why enough content from this article should be excluded to fit into the main article per WP:SIZE, then what's the rationale for deletion?  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, O'Reilly pulls in a consistent three million viewers, making it the most-watched news programme on cable. So where's the praise for him? Rule of thumb, really: if content would be inadmissable in or at the article "X", it's most likely it's inadmissable at "Y of X". The more encyclopedic route would be to merge the article back into the relevant articles and describing his controversies there. So basically: the first section goes into the commentator article, the second section just goes (as there is no effort of presenting the other side), and of the third section, move the subsections to their show/event articles (although I remain unsure where the Red Cross section can go). Sceptre (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take wikipedia policies over your "rule of thumb", not to mention that there is no question that all of the content in this article can go in the main article -- it's only here because of WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT (and even WP:POVFORK). Try reading the policies in question instead of rattling off an irrelevant axiom of your own accord.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Said "rule of thumb" is actually in POVFORK, and said axioms are supported by policy. And there is no SIZE issue. It counts the size of prose, not wikitext. And neither article, at their sizes, requires a split: the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) article is 9KB of prose, Political views of Bill O'Reilly is 37KB of prose, The O'Reilly Factor is 6KB of prose, and The Radio Factor is 2KB of prose. And really, adherence to policy and just policy is harmful to Wikipedia. Interpretation and application thereof is needed for Wikipedia policy not to stagnate. Sceptre (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- Three points: 1. There has been extensive work done on the article. Both to make it more encyclopedic and to prevent the rash of contentious editors who seem to flock to the page on a periodic basis. 2. Whether the article is a POVFORK is a matter of opinion, reasonable people can disagree.  Although begun as a valid split, there is some gray area either way about its current condition. 3. It is not impossible to merge this article into the main bio.  It can technically be done in three to four sentences (e.g. O'reilly has been criticized for using propaganda tactics, such as spin and misinformation on his radio and TV programs, even though he claims to have a no-spin zone.  Further, he has been invovled in several controversies for comments which have been deemed insensitive to minority groups, and victims of crimes).  I am sure most of you would disagree with the approach in number three, but it is a possibility. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with the third approach is that it literally suggests to truncate the result of five years' editing work into one abstract paragraph without following any of the procedures outlined by Help:Merging. — Rankiri (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True. #3 wasn't a proposal per se, more like a brainstorming idea.  Basically I was pointing out that technically the entire article can be summarized to a few sentences--I didn't mean to imply that it should. I am well aware that on these articles once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, it's tough to put it back in.  Outside of the procedures listed in merge, there are other problems to this kind of minimalist approach.  Namely, editors repeatedly asking how come "incident X" isn't in said biography, followed by the usual conspiracy accusations. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We're going to have trouble attempting to merge the content back into the article.  Although you've made a point of saying that you're not advancing the kind of truncated approach you introduced here, others have advocated doing precisely that.  Adopting such an approach would whitewash the record, as the truth is that positive information does not overwhelm negative information about O'Reilly in the sources; if anything, the opposite is true.  There seems to be an element that believes that positive information should, by definition, be the focus of his biography.  Obviously, this is not neutral writing.
 * O'Reilly is, I submit, far more notable for the various controversies surrounding him than anything else. If he were less controversial, he would not be so widely known and he would perhaps not even be on the air any longer.  Put another way, there is a need to balance criticism of, say, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton against the rest of their presidential biographies.  Without controversy, there would be very little of an O'Reilly biography at all.  Most of the time he's in the mainstream press, it's because of an episode that might end up on a "criticisms" type page. Croctotheface (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At risk of indelicacy, sometimes people labor for five years and produce nothing of value. Value is not a function of the time invested in the product. If several editors have labored for several years on an article covering their non-notable club at the University of Whoseverherdovit, do you have any qualms about deleting it? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * False analogy. The article's topic is quite notable and the stated rationale for deletion is not only questionable but is also completely detached from the article's content. — Rankiri (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a meaningful distinction for our purposes here. It doesn't address the point, which is that your appeal to the amount of time invested in the article as a basis for keeping it rests on shaky ground. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're grasping at straws. I might have mentioned it but I never gave the issue of age much weight. None of my arguments rely on it. — Rankiri (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If I assume good faith, I must conclude that you're being obtuse. In light of your keep vote, we must conclude that your argument that "[t]here has been extensive work done on the article" is an appeal to the amount of time invested in the article as a basis for keeping it. Which is what I said. If this metaargument must continue, it should get productive fast, or take it to individual talk. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk about being obtuse. I wasn't the one who made that statement and the person who made it clearly said that he was just brainstorming. — Rankiri (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the mistaken identity; mutatis mutandis, my comments stand as to user:Ramsquire's argument. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually you're still wrong since I support deletion. The sentence was simply a response and acknowledgment of the work of many editors at fixing the problems. It was not an argument for either keeping or deleting the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless you're disputing my point (viz. that the amount of work sunk into an article is not an argument for its retention), which doesn't seem to be the case, it's off-base to call the point wrong. It isn't. It may be mistaken to the extent it responded to an argument that you apparently weren't advancing, but that argument might appeal to others, and it is duly preempted. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm sort of sad to endorse deleting this given that work has gone into making it better, but I'd really rather see it go than stay. My main objection to this, and all criticism pages, is that they are at best collections of troll-magnet random facts and can be far, far worse.  I've said my piece on the article's talk page, and some of those concerns have been addressed, but I still think the concept for this article is, by nature, inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  I do believe that this is something that will have to be addressed with a formal version of WP:CRIT rather than on a case by case level, and my primary objection is that it is a criticism article, not to any of the specific current content.  SDY (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think users that vote delete should also make it clear how much of the information should be saved if it is deleted. Soxwon (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment from what I can recall before the this Fork was created there was a lot of edit warring on the main page. The Fork was meant to address some of the edit warring by moving the controversial stuff to another article, and keeping the biographical stuff on Bill-O's main page. This should be considered if a merge is to take place. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This argument has often been rejected in the past; see WP:BHTT. The answer to problematic content is not to separate it out into its own page, but to use the normal editorial processes to get rid of it. We already know how to deal with edit wars, and it isn't by creating POV-forks. O'Reilly is a controversial figure so his article will contain a great deal of controversy and criticism and it will probably attract edit warring. Creating a fork and putting all the criticism there is the easy way out, and the wrong choice IMO. *** Crotalus *** 14:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect. "Criticism of" articles are never appropriate. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, this appears a pure POV fork, as the nominator said. If someone wants to save the information and put it in the Bill O'Reilly article, that'd be more appropriate. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article should be deleted as a POV fork... but its contents are appropriate enough to be moved back into the main article? This nomination is a magnet for rash judgements and self-contradictory opinions. — Rankiri (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You've asked this question repeatedly throughout this AfD, so I figured I could give you the best answer I have. The reason I believe this article is, in effect, a POV fork is that info that is added there is overwhelmingly if not always negative.  It is to the point that even the United Way/Red Cross controversy, where BOR received positive coverage, is now read as either a negative story or editors will say it does not belong in the article.  The reason the info can be saved is that due to the work of the editors, we have done the best job we can in presenting negative information in compliance with BLP and NPOV.  However, that doesn't remove the fact that article in its current use exists to highlight negative viewpoints of Bill O'Reilly, which as I see it brings it under WP:POVFORK. I do think it was originally developed as a valid spin-off but its current use is different from its intended purpose. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's how I see this issue. Should the article just be deleted as an unambiguous POV fork? No, because it was created as a valid split and most of its content is properly sourced, factually correct and (mostly) neutrally worded. Should the article be renamed into something more neutral? Most likely. I'm not a fan of "Critisism of X" articles myself and most name-related objections on this page, including some of your own, are quite reasonable. Simon Dodd's earlier comment that "simply renaming it in such a way instantly create problem under WP:UNDUE" should certainly be taken into consideration, but I still believe that we have a number of regular editing methods to deal with that problem. Now, should some of the content be merged back into the main article? I actually have no problem with this, as long as both articles will be tagged with appropriate notice templates and the consequent discussion will take its proper course on the article's discussion page. My quarrel with the merging proposals in this discussion is that most of them are obsessed with the article's title and very few of them address the issue of its content or the available alternative of renaming. Taking into consideration the unanimous outcomes of the previous AfDs, I find such "hit-and-run" types of proposals inappropriate and evasive and think it will be better to refer this matter to WP:PM and the article's discussion page. It's not something we must decide here and now. — Rankiri (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you may be correct that "its current use" suggests we are highlighting the negative, but the answer to that is not to delete the article but to change the current use to something that does not suggest we should highlight the negative. We can move and rename the article right now; I think "public image of" as proposed below is a good formulation.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if we merged this with some details of awards and other notability, such as the best-selling books, it would make a good "perception of" article. A simple rename would not be appropriate.  The overall message is that O'Reilly is extremely popular but controversial, this page makes him sound like a fringe wacko hate group advocate who the reader could not possibly like, where in reality there are a fair number of people who do like him (same goes for portrayals of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a lot of Western Media, for that matter).  The "love/hate" should be obvious, this page currently reads as hate only.  SDY (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think awards and praise would certainly belong in a "perception of" article. You'd have no objection for me on those grounds.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would certainly supports this as well. My major objection was that if O'reilly were to win his Peabody tomorrow no one would think of putting that into this article.  However, if the article can be changed so that it incorporates all criticism of him, whether positive or negative, then I would support keeping it. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You can bet your tail that, if O'Reilly were to a Pulitzer/Peabody/etc, it would be added to his main bio post haste. :) That being said, I would also support a Critical reaction to Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) or something similar, in which both positive and negative reactions to O'Reilly were presented (assuming, of course, all of the information is summarized (not duplicated) in the main article).  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a POV fork. All good intentions aside, "Criticism of" articles have particular problems in this area -- while in a perfect world I can see ways to make them work, it's more important that the community not have double standards for politically controversial articles (I refer to the speedy deletion as an attack page of Criticism of Barack Obama some few months past). Ray  Talk 18:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps rename to "Public Image of Bill O'Reilly" or some such per Ray above.  Certainly there is too much here to delete, and criticism of O'Reilly is a notable topic on its own.  And given the way the material is actually covered on this page, it isn't anything close to an attack page. csloat (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the material couldn't be incorporated into the main biography. It wouldn't constitute undue weight because O'Reilly's entire public persona is based on stirring up controversy, and he has attracted substantial notable criticism. *** Crotalus *** 16:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well-written, well-sourced, and of significant size and scope.  I don't particularly care whether it needs to be moved to a different title.  --Merovingian (T, C, L) 22:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The writing has gotten a lot better, but the article is not well-sourced. Some of the citations are primary sources and can only be used to confirm that the criticism occurred.  "Well sourced" would imply that the sources are reliable secondary sources that provide interpretation as well as "raw data."  For example, the "FAIR's Peter Hart" section cites FAIR, an organization with political views contrary to O'Reilly's (and therefore of dubious reliability since they have an incentive to not be fair or accurate).  The second cite is to an equally colorful and possibly tendentious source.  Many of the sources used in the article are similar: they are pieces by organizations whose raison d'etre is "correcting" the conservative media.  Marvin Kitman's book, for example, would be a reasonable source to use (it's generally regarded as accurate if sometimes unflattering), because it provides the criticism and a reasonable interpretation of that criticism.  SDY (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's false logic to immediately assume that an organization is unreliable simply because they're critical of the right wing -- it could very easily be argued that said criticism is due to increased inaccurate reporting by organizations that tend to pander to that point of view. In the end, neither Wikipedia nor its editors should make those judgments -- we should only neutrally reference all viewpoints.  In no case should a source be excluded on the basis of its viewpoints, but rather we should seek to discern if said source is indeed reliable.  Policy states:  How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.  I'd posit that FAIR has a solid reputation for accuracy, and I've seen them critical of all political parties.  Policy additionally states:  The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence.  I'm pretty sure I can find a good number of FAIR references in mainstream media... Other than a retracted statement 15 years ago, do you have any basis to sustain the assertion that they're inaccurate, or is this based strictly on ideologies?  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will concede that their ideologies are the primary reason I find them dubious. Whether they are considered as "reliable" is really mostly a consensus decision, and I don't think I'd be alone in considering these groups as something less than "accepted high quality reliable" sources.  They're not the Iraqi Information Minister, but as the sole supporters of accusations of wrongdoing against a living person, I'd rather go by "When in doubt, leave it out."  You will of course totally disagree, but you have made it clear from our previous discussions that you have great faith in these organizations.  SDY (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the issue of whether a source is reliable or not depends on whether it uses the facts appropriately. I would say the great majority of primary sources are opinionated, but the better ones, the ones we should accept, base their conclusions on fact, instead of vague generalizations or flawed logic alone.  Also, using a primary source with an outspoken opinion does not constitute approving of that opinion.  --Merovingian (T, C, L) 09:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My guess is that you'll find quite a difference of opinion among editors as to whether the organizations in question "use facts appropriately." Using a source with an outspoken opinion without balancing it with other viewpoints according to their weight is problematic.  My expectation regarding primary sources (in this case the criticism itself) is that they are interpreted by a reliable secondary source.  This would be far easier in the main article anyway since there the criticism itself is a secondary source and it simply becomes a question of reliability.  Outspoken partisan groups there are fine so long as they are used to represent substantial opinions in proportion to their weight.  SDY (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunno if I can swallow all that... :) For one, the semantic argument that the source acceptability changes depending on whether it's cited in Bill O'Reilly or Criticism of Bill O'Reilly doesn't hold water -- this article is a split from that main article, and the subject here (Bill O.) is the same subject as there (Bill O.).  Also, the relevant policy statements don't deal with how they "use facts", but rather (repeat):  How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.  The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence.  See my comments a few paragraphs up.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although this nomination is screeching toward a no consensus close, that is a better result than a keep decision on the merits (which the previous nominations have not produced), so I add my vote to those supporting Crotalus' well-taken nomination. Additional comments above by user:PokeHomsar, user:The_Four_Deuces, user:Ramsquire, and user:RayAYang are also persuasive, but another point, not raised above, informs my conclusion. As I have made clear in comments above, I don't believe that deleting the article requires us to reincorporate all or even any of the content in this article back into the main O'Reilly article. Much of it, in my view, is nothing but fat, ready to be trimmed. Other editors disagree, however, so if this article is deleted, much of its material will presumably find its way back into the main article. Nevertheless, that result may have some utility. As user:Rankiri and user:Croctotheface have alluded to, the parent article faces size constraints. Deleting this article would force those who want to keep this material to treat the subject within those size limits, encouraging a leaner approach to the subject on its reincorporation into the main article. That is certainly possible (as, for instance, user:PelleSmith and myself have pointed out), and is desirable. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. O'Reilly's public persona is largely defined by controversies, so completely deleting this content would present a false image of that persona.  As far as merging it into the main article, it would explode the size of that article. Though I'm open to changing my mind if someone can come up w/ a concrete merger proposal that preserves most of this content and avoids the size issue.  Idag (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete We're giving a guy a whole whack of undue weight. Criticisms can stay in original article. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think SDY and Simon Dodd said it best. Articles entirely devoted to criticism of such a controversial figure are inviting POV attacks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, but Rename and Be Responsible - I don't really edit nowadays much. In the past I know that everything Simon Dodd said was true...this article was a lightning rod for every crazy loon to launch POV attacks on O'Reilly because they disagree with his ideology. This article needs constant vigilance in making sure it keeps to NPOV and does not degenerate into a Media Matters propaganda site. If people want to read "gotchya" statements by Media Matters that have been edited to portray O'Reilly in the worst possible light, they are free to go to Media Matters to satisfy their wants.

Still, criticism does have its place. Some of the criticism has been very noteworthy being mentioned on several networks, such as the Harlem comments. Others, such as Keith Olbermann, are not as noteworthy as he seems to be the only one on a cable news channel that is obsessed with O'Reilly. Now if they had a confrontation that the rest of the media picked up, that would be worth mentioning. I tend to go towards putting in more information than less especially if O'Reilly responded to the criticism and thus wouldn't constitute a BLP attack. People can then make up their own minds.

I do find it funny how some of the people calling for the keep on this article have gone into a frenzy when I added similar criticism about people like John Edwards and other people whom O'Reilly has criticized. Then again, I could just be seeing things. Arnabdas (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep- Far far FAR too much information here than can be contained in the parent article. Rename wouldn't be out of line, but there's no way I can see merging all the information into the article on Mr. O'Reilly, nor do I think just deleting it all is a good idea either. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete- This article is proof that just because something is well cited doesn't mean it's not trash. None of these events are encyclopedic, and entirely POV. I don't agree with Bill O'Reilly at all politically, but this is ridiculous content for an encyclopedia. How would you feel if you read this trash in a nonfiction printed book? 74.237.158.41 (talk) 00:23, 6 August 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.