Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox News Channel controversies


 * 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   Seedy keep WP:SNOW and WP:POINT.  Syn  ergy 15:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

POV fork. Sceptre (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - This article exists because of the sheer volume of controversy surrounding this subject, and does not exist as a POV fork in the standard usage of the term, as this would be included in the main article if there wasn't so damn much of it. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This (And the other articles) are notable enough to warrant separate topics about them. I don't see these article's as PoV forks, but rather as seperate articles to cover a certain aspect about the companies in question. These articles are simply to long to include into the main article, and are therefore forked. As far as i can see, the article comply to WP:NPOV more or less, and are properly sourced. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 14:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep for WP:POINT nominator SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Keep There is a difference between a POV fork and a sister/daughter/sub article. The controversies surrounding Fox News Channel are too numerous (the sub article is 64 kilobytes) to be included within the main article, so a separate article exists. Notable controversies are briefly summarized in the main article, and more in depth explanations are given on the controversies page. - auburn pilot   talk  14:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At the same time, we don't need to record every instance of people throwing up their arms and criticising FOX. Where's CNN controversies or MSNBC controversies? Sceptre (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hint* *Hint* CNN controversies is a blue link. These noms are all pointy or at the very least foolish. AfD is not for renaming discussions; those happen on article talk pages with a little help from WP:RM (when needed). -  auburn pilot   talk  14:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, using CNN was a bad idea, but at the same time, that article shouldn't exist either. Sceptre (talk) 15:03, 6 August 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.