Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Fox News – White House controversy
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.---'''
— User:Justmeherenow, 12:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOT||WP:FANCRUFT (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)