Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bill O'Reilly controversies (2nd nomination)

NPOV discussions
Evidence of NPOV

There are presently 30 footnotes to the article 11 of these footnotes are from one single source: Media Matters. Media matters is a confessedly biased source. From their webpage, they say: "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." I do not know what constitutes conservative in their minds, but they are clearly filtering and biased.

Of the remaining footnotes, 5 are from sources openly and professedly anti-O'reilly. Others may also be but less openly.

At the same time, there are only 6 footnotes from Riley himself or from Foxnews.

This suggests to me the bias in the article --Blue Tie 20:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So your problem is with Media Matters, who directly quotes with video/audio, things O'Reilly says? Well, we don't remove attacks from the National Review or Weekly Standard on liberal articles, why delete a whole O'Reilly article for that reason.


 * I see no problem with a source that is on the opposite side of the political spectrum as long as it has a reputation that is compatible with WP:RS. In fact, I think opposing sources are the only way a article can by NPOV. It incorporates a wide range of opinions.


 * Laslty, O'Reilly isn't known for being an academic or a trustworthy media figure. His entire career dates back to controversial reporting for ratings, and in that sense some reporting, as the article offers, notes it has been less that steller in quality. Documenting that with Media Matters for America, which has video of O'Reilly making the claims the Media Matters refutes is completely fine. Arbusto 21:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, my problem is with the article. It seems POV, (A POV Fork) and unencyclopedic.  The over-use of media matters (and underuse of other sources) is a symptom, not a problem in itself.  I am not concerned about deleting the article on that basis however, I am more concerned because it looks to me like an unencyclopedic POV Fork.  Really, that is all.  I gather that you may be an enemy of O'Reilly and like these things said of him.  I do not care for him myself.  But I am really more interested in wikipedia quality.  Is that a bit hard to believe?


 * I will say though, that I believe your comment "opposing sources are the only way a article can by NPOV" is mistating the case. There is an overabundance of those types of sources. Hence POV.


 * As far as O'Reilly being known for being trustworthy... I cannot say. This is a value judgment and I have no idea what other people "know" him for other than the fact that he seems to have the largest cable audience in his time slot. Some people evidently find him reliable.  I find him to be a blowhard.  But that's just me. However, the focus of this article on issues that Media Matters finds important is a problem for POV.  If you are not able to detect that, we are probably at an impasse regarding discussions.  But either way, I would request that you assume good faith! --Blue Tie 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

POV Fork discussions
Evidence of Fork

To my eye, the evidence of the Fork is the meeting of this criteria:


 * Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.

Also


 * ll the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View.

This article is clearly critical of Bill O'Reilly, focussing exclusively upon his errors and mistakes. It advocates a biased perspective and stance on the subject of "Bill O'Reilly". If the page were a detailed description of all of the various controversies that he has developed upon his show, that would be different, but this page focuses instead upon his errors and mistakes.

Should we make a page that shows what a wonderful person he is, how flawlessly insightful he sometimes is? Would that not be a POV Fork?

If the article was exclusively focussed on the news stories he developed or reported on of VARIOUS sorts... both good and bad, then it would be unbiased and would not be a POV Fork, but would instead be a page of the various controversies he has been involved in. But as it is, this page is simply a smear on this man. Not that he does not deserve the hot seat, but I do not like wikipedia taking that position. --Blue Tie 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another element of a POV Fork vs a Content Fork is that, according to policy:


 * 'the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

Yet notice that the main article contains a large section of controversies and no NPOV Summary. Thus it meets the conditions described in the definition of a POV Fork.

--Blue Tie 20:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Paste and Response from Project Page
I specifically request for input regarding the POV Fork issues I mentioned above. There are other concerns as well which I list here:

It seems to violate NPOV, It violates "What Wikipedia is not", it is unencyclopedic and it may be fodder for libel:
 * It violates "What Wikipedia is not, in particular "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind."


 * It seems to be resting its validity upon the fact that the things cited are true. I do not know either way, but I note that: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."  And this article seems highly unencyclopedic in nature. That a newsperson makes mistakes or misquotes or other things of that nature is not particularly useful information generally.  Some instances may be important (such as when Rather made an error that hurt his career) but every instance of such things is simply piling on without good encyclopedic cause.


 * The article seems contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Wikipedia Policy on Living Persons.  I quote:


 * Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources ... Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).


 * (Jimbo Wales)... reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

I am not claiming that all of the information is unsourced or badly sourced but I think that it violates NPOV, that it is unencyclopedic and it is a POV Fork. I believe that this creates such a "poverty" of quality that it should be deleted.

I would appreciate it if respondants would address these concerns, particularly the concern about POV Fork in their replies if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: It already addressed by . The O'Reilly article is long, and so is this one. It would be a mess to merge them both. To delete this well-sourced article would be strictly POV.
 * You keep throwing up quotes, but read WP:FORK: "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique." Arbusto 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

---


 * Please note my comments on the talk page regarding evidence. --Blue Tie 20:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw the talk. You defined what a POV fork is by quoting policy. I want proof that people have created that article/ added to it for the purpose of keeping the information off the main article or to slant the article against the subject. If you have proof of the latter, that should've be addressed on the talk page not AfD-- as you were already told before you made the AfD. Arbusto 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply on Talk page--Blue Tie 21:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I defined what a POV Fork is by quoting policy (guideline). I do not know that people created it to be a POV Fork but It has become such. Perhaps it was created that way by accident. Either way, it meets the conditions of a POV Fork: It has a strong POV (it is actually a sort of reverse cruft) and it does not fit the guidelines for how content forks should be handled.

As for being told before I made the AfD -- I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not recall ever being told this. If you think you recall me being told that, please show me the diff where this occurred. Maybe it was after I created the AfD. Please Assume Good Faith. --Blue Tie 21:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Stanley011 on 03:37, 4 September 2006 wrote, "If there are POV problems, then why nominate it for deletion rather than working with others on fixing those problems that you perceive?" A very reasonable question, why do you want to remove all of the O'Reilly controversies instead of point out the areas that are troubling? Arbusto 21:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the diff. But please note, that this was after the AFD was created, not before.  The answer to his statement is this:  I consider the article to be an uncyclopedic POV Fork such that a fix requires massive changes.  I will seek to add it to his comment now that you have shown it to me.  Thanks --Blue Tie 21:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Unencyclopedic" discussions
It is not really about controversies but about errors of one relatively unimportant man. That seems unencyclopedic to me. --Blue Tie 20:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)