Deletion of 2009 Fox News – White House controversy

Comment: or '''merge'''. #NEWS; this is a minor controversy, and although it may be covered in s, it is not encyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:RS)

Comment: Let the present editing fury play out.  Too often, articles are nominated for deletion simply because one side has strongly held views about (an uncomfortable, for them) subject. Nomination for deletion seems to be the first line of recourse in such situations relating to controversial topics.  I've seen it happen on some of the "hot topic" global warming articles, especially as it relates to |BLPs of individuals on the "wrong" side of the issue.  It too often serves as a vehicle for de-emphasizing or burying topics one disagrees with
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Quote notable at this point, but the article needs a complete rewrite.  Third party sourcing is copious, but you can bet this is going to be an |OR and |POV target for a while to come.  Suggest everyone put this on the watchlist and help keep things neutral.  :)  / /USER:Blaxthos|Blaxthos
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Reliable sources exist and have been cited. We can give it encyclopedic treatment, so I can't support deletion, and do not feel that an accurate reading of  requires one. I agree, however, that as an editorial decision, this might be better handled inside an article such as Fox News until time gives us a better perspective on how significant this incident truly is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Satisfies 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: with extreme prejudice.  Every politician in every democratic country has conflicts with every independent news agency in that country.  Its part of the proper relationship between journalists and politicians; journalists are ''supposed'' to be the watchdogs of the government.  They are ''supposed'' to be a critical voice, and the government is ''supposed'' to not like that.  Its how the system works!  This conflict is no more important or notable than any other conflict between a politician and the press that covers them.  There is absolutly nothing notable about this situation.  The bigger issue is ''why this article exists'', which is patently obvious, its a  to stuff all of the material that continually gets removed from other articles.  People have gotten tired of trying to insert overt commentary about Obama into articles where it doesn't belong, so this article is merely an attempt to get in through the back door what isn't being allowed to come in through the front
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)