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

message: 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)
replies: text: Please note my comments on the talk page regarding evidence. --Blue Tie 20:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Reply on Talk page--Blue Tie 21:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Paste and Response from Project Page 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Unencyclopedic" discussions