Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of those who are "far left" according to Bill O'Reilly


 * 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

List of those who are "far left" according to Bill O'Reilly
Unnecessary list. What possible purpose can listing a pundit's opinion of who he feels are "far left" serve? Carlos M 00:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't see how this is neccessary. A sampling of the links could serve as a reference that he uses the term 'far left', but this looks like anotherwise unneccessary list.  A list of who's-called-who-what isn't neccessary. Kevin_b_er 00:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It was cluttering up the article so moved here. I like to see everything on the article page, but people add so much to Bill O'Reilly that now there are at least 3 spin-offs. --Blue Tie 00:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not necessary and unencyclopedic, pov as to who is "far left".-- Shella * 00:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and Comment The article is not pov. Pov would be to have a "List of those who are 'far left'".  This article is "List of those who are 'far left' according to Bill O'Reilly" which is npov and is sourced.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The POV comes in by editors interpreting O'Reilly's remarks, and by selecting O'Reilly's opinions on the matter as listworthy in the first place. Do you support similar lists for Chris Matthews, Larry King, Ann Coulter, Lou Dobbs, and Stephen Colbert? And further lists of their opinions on who is "far right" as well? Where does it end? wikipediatrix 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think quite a few people do not understand the context of how this article was created. It did not just come up out of thin air.  It has been in the O'Reilly article for a long time but was quite a long list so I just provided a spin off article.  If the Letterman article had a huge list of who he thinks are hot, then someone might end up making that into a separate list (which I'm sure would be afd'd also).  I am not trying to proclaim that these lists are worthy of the label "encyclopedic" since so much cruft survives here or seriously fighting for the inclusion of this specific list.  I guess I caused quite a stir here by doing this.  There was no point I was trying to prove, but this discussion does enlighten as to what is really necessary to put into an article.  I would like to invite people who commented here to look at the Bill O'Reilly article itself and see what can be improved.  It is "B-class" right now but some imput could make it into a "Good Article."  MrMurph101 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep also. It's just a list but a long one.  There are other list articles here that are not as long either. I just created it per article size protocols. Someone could change the article title if the article is kept if they want to. MrMurph101 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kevin_b_er --NMChico24 00:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete but replace with a category. --Walter Görlitz 00:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- neither encyclopedic nor informative. —Aetheling 01:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Question It looks to me like people want to delete this list entirely. It previously came from an article.  Should it be put back into the article or removed from wikipedia? --Blue Tie 01:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say remove it completely. It serves no purpose, and the main article is already long. --NMChico24 01:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it should be merged back into the article. It does serve an important purpose, in that it exhibits O'Reilly's political leanings. -Hal Raglan 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It is extremely informative about O.'s positions and therefore his bias. Especiallysince the second adjective in this article is "journalist". If he states he is a neutral commentator but favors one position routinely and to the degree demonstrated by this list - that is crucial and objective information. Until this numerically and objective documentation of imbalance is addressed otherwise in the article- it must be kept. Furthermore - the article has been left totally imbalanced - one wonders why since it is so obvious - with continued listing of people on the a list of right he criticizes. SO Carlos M Carlose should either restore the list or offer wording to make the same point otherwise. Getterstraight 02:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)getterstraightGetterstraight 02:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and don't add it to the article. Wikipedia is not Bill O'Reilly's soapbox. --Wafulz 02:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A cool list but wikipedia is not the place for this kind of thing. If the author is that intrested I would recommend thrid party hosting and a ref link off the main O'Reilly article. NeoFreak 03:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, judging from Getterstraight's comment this is a POV fork. Gazpacho 03:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, leave it out of the main article. It doesn't need a comprehensive list, just some examples that people have verifiably commented on. Gazpacho 03:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge a few back into "Opinions on others politics". There's no need to keep a catalogue of every one of O'Reilly's pronouncements, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An amusing insight into what passes for political commentary in America though. -- IslaySolomon 03:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - minor information that, as pointed out above, would be soapboxing for O'Reilly. No point to it, really. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge back into O'Reilly article — Joshua Johaneman [[Image:Flag_of_New_York.svg|30px|]] 03:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete A cluttered, unencyclopedic mess. Twipie 03:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. An arbitrary, OR, and indiscrimate collection of someone's opinions. What's next, List of women David Letterman thinks are hot, List of things Lou Dobbs thinks are bad for America, and List of dishes that are bad according to Chairman Kaga? wikipediatrix 04:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with no merge. LC (maybe?) and per kevin_b_er. --> So sayeth  M  e  t  h  n  o  r Sayeth back|Other sayethings
 * Delete and do not merge, unless maybe a maximum of four entries were put in the main article to serve the purpose of illustrating a point. There is no need for all of this. GassyGuy 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no merge. We really do not need a separate list of the people each and every loudmouth talks about.  Yes, it was cluttering up the article. The solution was to remove it from the article as cruft, leaving a few notable examples with some discussion in detail so that readers will understand O'Reilly, which is the purpose of the article.  O'Reilly is absolutely not a reliable source for political science, so a list is of no evident merit. Guy 10:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per NeoFreak above. It's fine as a third-party page with a link on his wikipedia article, not so fine as an article of it's own or as clutter on his page -Markeer 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and no merge per NeoFreak. I find it utterly bizarre that anyone is obsessive enough to even be taking the time to keep track of this sort of thing; it certainly serves no purpose on Wikipedia. --Aaron 16:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per zat Guy, do not merge. The article, in some way, seems to exist simply to make a point. Agent 86 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Who cares who this guy thinks (POV) is 'far left'? Marcus22 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (no merge) and I concur with the opinions of JzG and Wafulz. There is no reason to fork off the opinions of any Talking Head into a seperate article... and no reason to retain it in an article about the person for that matter.--Isotope23 19:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep although the editors who point out that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information have a very valid point, this list although verifiable does have independant notability issues. To some of the editors voting delete, please remember that AfD is not the proper forum for articles with POV issues, or articles that need improvement. Ramsquire 22:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true. Articles which are based on an inherently faulty and POV premise from the getgo are indeed fodder for AfD.

wikipediatrix 02:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll glady retract my statement and change my vote, if you show me which policy or guideline supports your contention. Please note which states that AfD is not proper forum for POV issues.  The better argument for delete is that the list violates WP:NOT as it's most like listcruft and who BO thinks is far left is not notable.Ramsquire 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is list is verfiable.  Because of the nature of O'Reily's show I think that this article does serve a useful purpose.  Verifiable, notable and useful, its a keep to me. AmitDeshwar 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You might answer my questions I've put forth elsewhere in this AfD, then: do you think similar lists on this and other topics should be started for other celebrities of equal or greater stature (cough) as Bill O'Reilly? Why or why not? wikipediatrix 02:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Possibly the most ridiculous and pointless article I've ever read. No place in an encyclopedia. 83.67.2.61 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JzG, wikipediatrix. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge back into the O'Reilly article. Its an important list within the context of the main article to help demonstrate (without editorializing) O'Reilly's true political leanings; as a separate article it serves little purpose.--Hal Raglan 00:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete list of trivial information.--Peta 05:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --TorriTorriTalk to me! 06:29, 30 September 2006 (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.