Talk:media bias

RFD discussion: October 2016
SoP surely. Glossing it as US-only and throwing in a jab at Fox News is also dumb. Equinox ◑ 00:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as blatant SoP. "US" label is indeed bizarre. Mihia (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. SoP clad in POV-pushing, ugh! — Ungoliant (falai) 02:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * PoV-pushing? Have you ever watched RT (TV network), CNC World, Al Jazeera, Fox News, MSNBC in the US? That's before we get to the more controversial "liberal media bias". I think it is SoP reality. Delete. DCDuring TALK 03:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It could be revised and kept, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But why? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A typical RM question which needn't be answered. But why not? Even though it has been deleted prematurely on a flimsy pretext, it could be restored. DonnanZ (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying it could, i.e., for what reason? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: it's simply bias shown by the media, and so evidently SoP. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One mature reflection, this could be considered, in part, a language topic. Therefore, users might expect us to have it. OTOH, it is (still?) SoP. Perhaps this would be a good use of . is not too bad. DCDuring TALK  15:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, transparent SOP. bd2412 T 15:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, for so many reasons. "The determination of the presence or absence of instances of bias is subject to considerable controversy." Is an extraordinary statement of the obvious and nothing to do with the business of a dictionary. There's a case for WT:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense because it's that stupid and erroneously US-biased. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Usage notes can always be removed or revised. Is the phrase or definition US-biased or US-relevant? Is Brexit UK-biased? DCDuring TALK 18:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not only the US, some British newspapers (not mentioning any names) are notorious for media bias. DonnanZ (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedily deleted by Metaknowledge. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That was indecently quick. DonnanZ (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I don't like that it was deleted out of process. --WikiTiki89 18:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely too fast for a good-faith entry. Was personal, political, anti-US animus involved or does it just look that way? DCDuring TALK 18:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. And I think MK might have been applying w:WP:Snowball here (appropriately). - TheDaveRoss 18:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't 100% snowball though. DonnanZ (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It also wasn't really a good-faith entry. But I believe due process should be used whenever it is reasonable to do so. By the way, the same IP created vast right-wing conspiracy. --WikiTiki89 20:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How was it not a good-faith entry? Did you look at the history? It was around since 2007. I modified the initial entry long ago, late in 2008. I bent over backwards to make it as politically neutral as I knew how. And when I did so, I thought such expressions were dictionary-worthy. DCDuring TALK 00:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe the intentions of the IP were in bad faith, but they could have been neutralised. Dictionary-worthy? Well said, I agree. DonnanZ (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I should say that throwing in a jab at Fox News is never dumb. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Transparent SOP; delete. - -sche (discuss) 17:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Substantive content was deleted before 18:09, 27 October 2016. Shortly thereafter it was replaced with an "only in WP" no-entry. DCDuring TALK 17:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I also object to only in Wikipedia so please after a full week has elapsed, carry out the consensus and delete it. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What is your objection? I thought that this was what and  were designed for:
 * discouraging recreating an entry for a term found to not meet CFI
 * directing passive users to an informative source and to citations.
 * If they are not to be applied in this case, perhaps they need to be put up for deletion. I'd have thought that they could be added en masse here for most WP article titles (those for which we don't have entries) to achieve those purposes. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In any event, the consensus was to delete the substantive entry, which was done out of process without express rationale, but which was the most likely outcome of the RfD. It seems to me that you are the only one so far objecting to the current "noentry". Accordingly, we should need a new RfD. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You've blindly asserted that people search for this entry. The way I see it, 'no entry' is not for every Wikipedia title in existence. If it were, then surely getting a bot to create all the Wikipedia titles. No need for a new rfd debate, just to act on the outcome of this RFD and not put DCDuring's opinion ahead of everyone else's. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We are mainly hearing from vociferous hardline deletionists such as RM, not from more passive users. DCDuring's opinion does matter. DonnanZ (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What he's actually done is put his opinion ahead of the consensus. I'm not saying his opinion doesn't matter. But sometimes in a democracy, you're on the side with less votes and you just have to accept it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no need to be so complacent. Latecomers are unable to form an opinion as the main entry was deleted less than 24 hours after the RFD was applied. Is that democracy? No. DonnanZ (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as the entry was recreated and I had to delete it again, and this thread was archived without being properly closed, let me summarise the above discussion: 10 editors (Eq, Mihia, Ungoliant, Sgconlaw, BD, RM, WT, Dave, -sche, and of course myself, the speedy deleter) supported deleting, 1 editor supported keeping (Donnanz), and 1 editor wanted a (DCD). The consensus is clearly for the entry to be deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)