Talk:Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

message: This was supposed to no longer exist as of 1 week ago. We need to get it back on track. What are we going to do with it? Soxwon (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for retaining the content as a separate article, so renaming the article and further inviting other information, particularly the positive information that's largely missing from this article, strikes me as the best solution.  There seemed to be a good bit of support for this course of action in the original discussion, so it seems like a fine way to go as far as procedure as well.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: does that work? Soxwon (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Works for me.  Only change I'll make is that the word "image" should be lowercase because this isn't a proper name.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *facepalm* Thank you. Soxwon (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger, rename, what? 

message: Since there appears to be little enthusiasm for making this article into the alternative to the AfD decision, I will implement Soxwon's proposal above sometime this weekend.  For consistency, please reply at the main article.  SDY (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be consensus for the merger based on the recent discussions here.  (It's highly dubious whether there was consensus for a merger in the original AfD, too.)  The above section is hardly evidence that there is "little enthusiasm" for anything, as there seems to be a wide agreement about what should be done.  Croctotheface (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you want to do a formal AfD review, consensus appears to exist for the merge.  There isn't a wide agreement, but there was a decision made by the processes that Wikipedia uses for resolving these kinds of disputes.  It's not what I'd prefer either, but that was the decision that was made.  SDY (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The closing admin said outright that he could've closed it either way.  There does seem to be a consensus here for a general approach to reworking the article.  If you want to see content added to the article in accordance with that, then write the content and add it; don't just say that it's been a few days, nobody's written it, so we need to merge.  Yes, AfD is a common form of gathering consensus, but truthfully there was no consensus in that discussion, and the fact that an administrator decreed that, in fact, there was doesn't much mean anything.  We are not compelled to merge if we reach a consensus for a better solution.  Croctotheface (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very well, open an RFC, notify all of the people involved in the AFD, and try again.  We can't just arbitrarily ignore it, though.  For controversial issues like this, process is important.  My guess is that we'll end up equally deadlocked.  Unless we have a real plan and someone who will actually execute the plan of turning this into a balanced "public image" article, I'm in favor of running the original AfD decision because it requires a lot less work to achieve an acceptable compromise, and I'm actually willing to get the work done.  If we implement the alternative, will you actually implement it?  Other than the proposal, and one framework I ventured which was immediately shot down, nothing concrete has happened to the article other than the name change.  SDY (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  We certainly can just ignore it; doing just that is precisely the spirit behind WP:IAR.  As I've said, the fact that the closing admin picked "merge" rather than any other result from that discussion, which didn't express a consensus for much of anything, doesn't carry much weight.  The name change itself happened all of five days ago.  Don't have unrealistic expectations of the speed with which things will happen here.  Someone has to actually write the content, but I want to point out that there's nothing stopping that someone from being you.  Croctotheface (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you could, for that matter, since it's your plan.  In the spirit of WP:BOLD, though, unless someone else takes concrete action to implement your plan, I intend to implement the AfD decision.  I have no interest in implementing your plan, and I'm not going to do it for you because I don't believe it's a good solution (it's still an unnecessary content fork, the size issue doesn't convince me at all since so much of this could be condensed).  I'm not opposed to the alternative you've proposed, but it's been a month since the AfD and all that's happened is a name change and nothing has happened, so unless something happens, something will happen.  Simple enough, no?  SDY (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, boldness or not, you don't get to decide by yourself.  Claiming the AfD result as your rationale buts up against the facts, as there really was not a consensus for much of anything at that discussion, and the consensus here seems pretty strongly in favor of reworking the article, especially when you've just said that you're OK with it yourself.  I'll assume good faith (or perhaps deny reality is a better term) and not take your statements here and in the edit summary as your attempt to give me some kind of order or ultimatum.  I'm not interested in writing large scale new content for much of anything, and I'm not going to write the sections here.  However, I'm confident that we have editors who are interested in doing that and will do it.  A month since the AfD doesn't mean much; it's been about five days since a consensus emerged to rework the article, and people are busy with lives outside Wikipedia.  If you're impatient, the best solution would be to put the stuff you want to see in the article into the article.  If you're not interested in that, give other people a chance to do it.  Croctotheface (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I already responded to this.  The consensus to rework the article emerged less than a week ago.  The fact that one admin closed a discussion with no consensus as if it had one doesn't mean much of anything.  I already put some stuff in the article that can serve as a starting point for editors who want to write it.  Don't worry; it's going to happen.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I've been otherwise unavailable.  I completely agree with Croc's points listed above.  There is no deadline.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no new consensus, the two of you agree but I clearly don't.  That's not exactly a quorum considering the number of people who weighed in on the AfD.  When you have the content for a reasonable article, I will not object to this being recreated.  Until then, I'm going to implement the AfD decision because this is not a reasonable article.  If you really feel I'm being too bold, bring it to AN/I.  SDY (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to be saying, in essence, that you and only you get to decide.  The AfD discussion is not sacrosanct in the first place; there's nothing wrong with reaching a different consensus here, especially considering that there was no consensus at the AfD in the first place.  In the second place, you can't have it both ways and say that we're fine to reach a consensus to rework the article...but only if you sign off on it.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with SDY's assertion that he can go and implement changes to which two longtime editors object simply because he feels there is some sort of urgency.  The closing admin has backed off based upon (1) the questionable call of the AFD, (2) the promise of several editors to take it to WP:DRV should the article be deleted, (3) the changes made to address the concerns of most of the "drive-by" delete !votes, (4) ongoing active discussion of article improvements.  While there is a consensus that the deficiencies can be addressed, there is no way you can use a questionable AFD decision as justification to implement sweeping changes based upon your sole judgment (especially when it is opposed by established editors).  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Did you bother to even consult the closing admin, or is this entirely to prove a WP:POINT?  You're opposed by two editors directly, and there seems to be a pretty clear indication that people have worked through or past the AFD discussion.  Quite frankly, you have no standing to blank pages and delete content (as an involved editor); continuing to do so will be willful disruptive behavior.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add any additional comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Public_image_of_Bill_O.27Reilly_.28political_commentator.29.  SDY (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving on 

message: OK, I have merged some content and then self-reverted the main BoR article.  The two things that are here but not there are the analysis (which I've trimmed a little) and the specifics on the lesbian gangs, childhood home, and other errors.  What else from this article should be merged?  
Actually, looking at it, it seems that a lot of stuff has been merged already, trimmed slightly to give proper weight for a non-dedicated article.  What is here that is not addressed there?  I'll give you guys a day or two to look.  SDY (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to merge, I support putting all the content into the main article.  Much of it is notable enough for its own article, and it's all highly relevant to the subject.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is, from what I can tell, mostly there already, and what wasn't there I'm pretty much adding with the proposed revision.  It's trimmed down a bit and worded differently, obviously.  Mostly I want to make sure that we don't lose any of the references that are currently on this page, since those are such a pain to find.  I think the only thing that was cut was the Kitman book, which might be an interesting reference to use but doesn't seem to be important enough to include, as Soxwon pointed out above.  SDY (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merged article 

message: I have placed the redirect, per my close of the AfD.  All of the article content remains available in the article history, including useful information, links, and references which may belong in other articles.
When I closed the AfD, I allowed a two-week deadline for mergers to take place; we're now at nearly a month.  If there is a need to modify my closure, Deletion Review is the correct forum.  I expect that the editors of this page understand that further edit warring over the redirect would be inappropriate and may draw sanctions.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note from the closing admin 

message: Just as I suspected, this AFD was used as a method to simply bury the content and forget about it.  I'll be initiating a WP:DRV in the next few days.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll undo my edit-- the redirect.  From reading the closing admin's last edit it seemed like he wanted the redirect to stick-- the threat of sanctions and all.  I've asked Soxwon what was going on but didn't get an answer, yet.  But if there is some agenda going on in the background, I'll just stay out of this.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge