Deletion of 2009 Fox News – White House controversy

Comment: per #NEWS which states that Wikipedia records the ''historical notability'' of events. Articles should be in proportion to their significance in the grand scheme of things, and shouldn't focus on passing news stories which are hyped up to gain ratings. Only after the historical notability of this event is evident will an article be appropriate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Frankly, there should be zero mention of it here in its own article, and we seem to have a pile of |one-issue users trying to pile on a |POV article. If it fits anywhere, perhaps a mention on the obama presidency
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: The article seems to fail to demonstrate why this particular incident is notable and so I agree with Thryduulf's comments. I fear some may expecting that this issue might become something more significant but such speculation isn't appropriate.  is relevant; "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own". The length of the article seems to support the suggestion that an article here is not necessary and that this event could be adequately dealt with in other articles. It note the comments that this article satisfies  that has been given as a reason for keeping this article but I'd suggest we can't simply say that any topic which has "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" automatically needs an article, not least where it is probably true to say that any trivial incident concerning the White House is likely to result in dozens of news articles
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTE)

Comment: Merger into another article, such as the one on the Obama presidency or even the one on FNC controversies, would entail either full-scale incorporation (creating a problem of undue weight because of the length of the section on this topic) or extremely selective incorporation (losing much information).  Keep this article per  with a brief summary and wikilink in any other article where it's appropriate.  The same applies if U.S. presidents and the media is created -- such an article could not cover every President-versus-media dispute in this level of detail, so it would most sensibly be structured as a general outline containing overall observations, with wikilinks to more specific articles like this one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)

Comment: Although a ton of media voices have advised the White House to ignore Fox News, the White House probably knows what it is doing to call Fox News out for essentially being a partisan organization. Those who believe and argue that the controversy is one-way, Fox complaining about the White House, may well be influenced by some desire to ''pretend'' that the White House ''had'' indeed ignored Fox. But, geez, folks! The die was cast and the White House has drawn its line in the sand! ( -- which several commentators think may well work out ''well'' for the White House, in the end, http://www.newser.com/off-the-grid/post/310/ive-changed-my-mind-on-the-obama-fox-showdown.html truth be http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10162009.html# told). Still, it boggles the mind that folks could argue that the topic isn't of note (''per,'' of course, 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This has not only received enough coverage, but is the subject of an increasing amount of commentary; definitely satisfies . Cheers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: a president with one ideology has a kerfuffle with a "news" organization of an opposing ideology?  Stop the presses!  Seems a bit |coatrack-ish to boot, though the fun of this one is that ''both'' anti-Obama and anti-Fox folks can use it as a launching pad against their targets.  I'd also have reservations with the creation of an overreaching "presidents and the media" article, as it seems a bit of a |gluing together of minor spats spanning the century.  Notable enough in some cases to mention in appropriate articles, sure, but not as a patchwork of connected issues
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Jayron32 & @ Bali ultimate, etc.): The John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008|NYTimes-JMcCain-lobbyist affair or the Obama-Ayers controversy, for example, ''could'' well have been covered, in the first case, on some McCain-series article plus on wherever is the "NYTimes controversies" page and, in the second case, on some Obama-series page plus on Professor Ayers's BLP, but it just made more sense to treat the events of either controversy in one main place each -- that's the Wikiway. (a) ''Per , if reliable 2ndary sources cover a controversy, it merits coverage in Wikipedia, and if this would be more conveniently accomplished through having a distinct article on the topic, do so. (b) ''Per / and especially per NPOV's #A simple formulation (which reads, '''Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves''', ''bolding in the original'') if notable commentators believe whatever issue -- ''eg'' the supposed "McCain lobbyist affair" or the supposed "Ayers issue" -- a hissy fit, the encylopedia might make note of or grant encyclopedic coverage to that opinion, nevertheless we cannot unilaterally endorse such an opinion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:ASF)

Comment: See additional source coverage satisfying , ''|topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject'', see list below
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:NOTE)

Comment: OTNEWS and is |notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Satisfies . Topic has received significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary sources that are Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent of the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: Cos the material, obviously, is adequately sourced (and do so speedily for reasons of Wiki proper procedure because this nomination requests no more than a erging|merger
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mediation (WP:M)

Comment: This should be part of the Obama Presidency and FNC.  As it stands it is likey to become a 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK)

Comment: or '''Delete''' This article certainly falls under the domain of  and it should be also noted that this sort of complaint/controversy is not new with previous administrations blocking/complaining/etc of a news channel/paper they do not like/agree with.  (It seems as if the reverse was happening last year with MSNBC and the Bush administration and even earlier on with the Nixon administration and the Washington Post.)  This article should be merged either with the Obama presidency article, FNC article, or some other related article.  Alone this topic does not stand up to have it's own article and can quickly devolve into a complaint/criticism article with only biased |RS's to back it up
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RS)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS|not news is around to prevent us from becoming from some cheap tabloid covering the ordinary minutae of every day life. This situation is far from ordinary and far from mere minutae, given the fact that those involved are the White House and a major "news" network, this is not something minor and trivial, nor will it end quickly and cleanly (ok, maybe I'm engaging in a little |crystal ball gazing here, but it still seems like a reasonable conclusion to make given the facts). This is likely to be a long, drawn out mess. Whether or not it deserves its own article outside that of Fox News and President Obama, I'm not sure. That, however, is a matter for discussion at the talk page, not a matter of deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Per'' , comparison to what Wikiarticles exist with concern to the Carter administration isn't valid (especially since there was no Internet nor Wikipedians then to write them); we only need to determine if the topic is notable. (And, in that regard, see the following Wiki editing helps):'''Recentism''' in the first sense—established articles that are bloated with event-specific facts at the expense of longstanding content—is usually considered one of Wikipedia's faults. But in many cases, the recentist content can be a valuable preliminary stage in gathering information. Any encyclopedia, even Britannica, goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are published while in draft and developed/improved in real time, so rapidly developing drafts may appear to be a clutter of news links and half-developed thoughts. Later, as the big picture emerges, the least relevant content ought to be and often is eliminated.---''''''Policy relating to '''fancruft'''. As with most of the issues of |What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research, the latter two of which are valid reasons for deletion. Such articles may also fall into some of the classes of entries judged to be "Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information|indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured articles. &nbsp; ¶ &nbsp; Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual ''reason'' for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.---'''
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOT||WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: An important news item but .  Any worthwhile content can be moved to the linked pages -- most likely the article on Fox News.  Article is a  as is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: This is a pretty |normal tit-for-tat that happens regularly between the administrations and dissenters.  Every government body decides which dissenters it wants to dialog with and which it wants to snub.  We don't shouldn't have any articles about specific events during Carter's relationship with the media.  Instead, we have a few sentences in his article.  This article is going to seem pretty dumb in 30 years.  '''~a
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)