Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox effect


 * 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. There is a clear consensus that the subject is covered in reliable sources and meets notability guidelines. If it is still considered that a merge is appropriate then that should be the subject of a separate talk page discussion. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fox effect

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to be a neologism. The article cobbles together a few sources that use the words "Fox" and "effect" near each other, but it's unclear that the term itself is worthy of its own article. Any useful content can be merged to Fox News or one of its child articles. Oren0 (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:GNG - see and . Bearian (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Take a moment to click on the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. I won't waste time copying link by link down here with its summary.  You should be able to spot some obviously notable news sources commenting on it straight away.   D r e a m Focus  23:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting that the term is notable. I'm questioning whether this term is worthy of its own article, or rather if this is a larger issue belonging at Fox News and the related articles. Just because a term is used in the media doesn't mean it couldn't be a redirect to Fox News controversies. The article is useless in its current form, and every source you look at has a different definition of what the "fox effect" is (in the first few results I clicked, I saw definitions about making the country more conservative, promoting journalistic sensationalism, and increased panic). At a certain point, the article just becomes about accusations about what effect Fox News has had, which is a rehash of the Fox News controversies article. It's possible that these issues can be addressed and the topic can be discussed coherently, and I applaud the rescue tag, but I'm not sure how this article can exist with any content distinct from these other articles. Oren0 (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, it's worthy of its own article. (It already has others. The independent notability of this particular line of research should be the topic of this article.) DeliciousBits (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2011 (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.