Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of Fox News

Fox News Bias
The article on FOX News already has a lengthy section entitled "Allegations of Bias". This page, meanwhile, is a one-sided hit piece. I'm no fan of Fox, but this is clearly not neutral, and, since the content is already covered far better elsewhere, should be deleted. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment: The latest shot in one of our perpetual edit wars I'm afraid, see the FOX News talk page. No vote as yet. Andrewa 03:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Fox News Bias has identical content to the section "Allegations of Bias". That section needs to be made neutral, and this article deleted. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 03:24, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * There aren't really any edit wars. An anon moved the content to a new page without discussion, and I moved it back. I mentioned it on the talk page, pointing out past discussions which had decided against a criticism article, and he agreed. There was no real disagreement on the subject. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 14:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I downloaded both the section FOX News and this article Fox News Bias and ran them through the diff program. They are letter-for-letter identical.  Looking at Talk:FOX News I see that the person who did the move wanted to remove what he regarded as strong POV from the main article.  I happen to disagree; the "Allegations of bias" section is for the most part a factual catalog rather than polemic, and if it appears POV to some this may be because Fox News defenders haven't got their act together and found factual information that counters the "Fox is biased" evidence.  The guy who did the move didn't find any supporters and his edit was reverted thirty minutes after it was made.  This new article is redundant, the Allegations of Bias section is well placed at present.  Delete. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep but change title to "Allegiations of bias in FOX News reports" or something similar. The article on FOX News is very very long in my view and can be shortened by breaking into a separate article. --JuntungWu 05:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What Juntung said. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 05:43, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Improve appropriate section in Fox News.  GWO 11:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even when all the POV is combed out, this is a lot of information to cram into a subsection of another article. There seems to be enough to say about this topic for its own separate entry, so I would like to see it left as such. [[User:Livajo|&#21147;&#20255;|&#9786;]] 13:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Inherently POV, given the existence of the Fox News article. Also redundant article. Geogre 15:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. NPOV it, merge in appropriate info from the Fox News article, and give that article a short summary of what's here. At the very least it should be redirected. - Lifefeed 15:42, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. People above argue that FOX's article should be trimmed, and this subject deserves its own mention. I'll agree to a compromise "Keep," if you're going to remove the bias section from the main article. Otherwise this is redundant nonsense. Cribcage 00:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, original article section serves the purpose just fine. Shane King 01:36, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is noteworthy and should be discussed at length (but not so as to overwhelm the original article). I live in New Zealand and even I've heard of this issue. It is worthwhile splitting out this material into a separate article. I've added the NPOV tag to reflect the POV allegations. Will someone who's bitching about the "inherent POV" please add arguments for the opposing POV. Don't VfD to get rid of POV material - fix it! [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 02:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't someone who has a substantive rebuttal to any of the allegations simply edit to insert the rebuttal, or at least make a substantive comment on the talk page? The exact text in the article appears in the Fox News article and opposition has been expressed for the attempt to move the information out to another article (the link was reverted in just over 30 minutes and not restored).  I am removing the NPOV tag solely because you have not made any comment on the talk page; please feel free to restore it if and when you have a substantive POV allegation to make. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have read Talk:FOX News in addition to the articles themselves. Please excuse my cluelessness. It's probably best to delete this page, at least until consensus is reached amongst the Fox News editors. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 21:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This content was moved from FOX News without discussion, and several discussions on Talk:FOX News have decided that a criticism article would be misplaced and would breed POV. I replaced the content at the FOX News article a while ago. This is a non-issue, and the criticism article (now orphaned and obsolete) should be speedy-deleted. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 14:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does anyone else appreciate the irony that those individuals who go out of their way like this to criticize the bias on Fox News are only making the network more famous and giving it an inflated level of importance? Fox News is a television station watched by a great many people and the subject of more than a little controversy, so it certainly deserves an article, but it is really just a small footnote in the grannd scheme of human history and does not deserve an overly long main article or extensions through ancillary articles such as this one.  Indrian 04:52, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. What this issue needs is some serious editorial scrutiny on the FOX News page and only on the FOX News page.  In our culture, speaking about Fox News inevitably results in a conversation or polemic about the bias or lack thereof in the network, making a major part of the information needed to understand such a network.  To take a major part of a topic and move it just because no one can agree on how to write it is absurd.--The[[User Talk:TheGrza| Grza ]] 08:41, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, this content should be covered in the main FOX News page. - SimonP 08:44, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not only is the subject already brought up in the Fox News article, this is completely POV. -- Crevaner 21:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, wikipedia is not for partisan propaganda! -- Old Right 23:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark Richards 01:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Worth Keeping provided NPOV can be maintained, but duplication with the FOX News article is unnecessary. Either Merge this piece with the main FOX News article, or alternately remove the "Allegations of Bias" content from the main article and merge that with the "Criticisms of Fox News" article and link to it.23skidoo 06:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge --- An NPOV way of describing FOX would probably be as "the most biased news source in the westen world", but I guess that wouldn't fly. ;-) // Liftarn


 * Comment: The parent article and the child article seem to be pretty stable; nobody seems to be keen on altering them. I suggest that this may be because a consensus has been reached by those currently editing that the section belongs in that article and the content is acceptable. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think we should respect the collective judgement of the editors of Fox News that this content reside for now there. Paul August 21:00, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fox is biased. In fact, you couldn't describe everything in one webpage.
 * keep The real story is at Fox News Bias, meaning there is more bias than news on Fox. The fact that they sued to protect their use of the phrase 'fair and balanced' and were literally (and I mean that literally, in the literal sense) laughed out of court is very telling. There's more material for Fox News Bias than for Fox News. the Fox News bias section can be reduced to a simple summary and the Fox News Bias article can be renamed to Fox News bias or Fox News alleged bias and expanded. Pedant 02:40, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
 * Keep. Xtreme! 01:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Note that this user made his first edit about 2 hours before this one, and seems to have had keen interest in the VfD page for a newbie. [[User:Livajo|&#21147;&#20255;|&#9786;]] 01:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)