310:
201:
122:
300:
279:
139:
431:
49:
191:
170:
21:
542:
Yes, the attacks have started already. I found the following on my User Talk page: "This has been done because the page is a blatant advert that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article." The funny thing about the objection is that I was exclusively paraphrasing
631:
Well P&W, you accuse me of stating the exact opposite of what I in fact say above wrt the individuals you name and which I refer to as a group ("people behind"). As for their profit motive, I think that's self evident. I also stand behind the statement about the larger culture, though of course
524:
Adjusted your entry to proper indent level. The funniest thing about this is that I doubt the people behind this are really hard core right wingers. More like that bland soupy mediocrity of middle think which characterizes the "centre right" nation. It's obviously an attempt to cash in on ignorance
604:
Granted, the network has just been announced and it has been covered in other media because they know it has and will generate controversy... hence it is notable, even if it never goes on-air. Definitely no speedy delete. It will need to be watched and developed as more happens related to this
568:
72.228.177.92 is gently and courteously reminded that the article Talk Page is reserved for discussions about how to improve the article. Discussions about 72.228.177.92's opinions of the network that is subject matter of the article, or the "people behind this," do not belong here. Most
713:
Knowledge (XXG) is still an encyclopedia, it can hardly be compared with the news media you mention. The creation of this article for a commercial broadcast venture which isn't even in operation degrades wiki as an encyclopædic source. Enough.
679:'s article, and no one could reasonably construe HuffPo as being inclined to publish a "blatant advert" for a right-wing TV network. I don't see how these news articles could be construed as "blatant adverts," but I'm eager to learn.
560:
If this is a "blatant advert," then the issue should be taken up with the editors of those newspapers, because their reporters are writing news stories like "blatant adverts," in the opinion of a
Knowledge (XXG) editor named
662:
Well, whatever you intended to target with these remarks, these remarks don't belong on this page. Do you have any suggestions regarding the content of the article? My sourcing includes AOL News, the
756:, if you choose to proceed. I'm sure you'll find a few people who agree with you, since the article is about a right-wing TV network. But I think the general consensus will be "keep," and
581:
as "hard core right wingers," of "truly contemptible" "bland soupy mediocrity," "ignorance" and "backwardness" are especially unwelcome, when we have a policy here called
366:
31:
261:
850:
356:
835:
251:
825:
855:
845:
332:
840:
830:
764:
for that. RightNetwork is notable because it has generated controversy. The article is reliably sourced. In fact, the article has passed muster at
223:
114:
227:
323:
284:
790:
It's a well written article, better than the stub the subject matter merits. Do I seem like the kina skank that would rain on your parade?
441:
791:
715:
633:
562:
526:
492:
412:
214:
175:
460:
478:
150:
781:
684:
590:
397:
27:
456:
772:
concerns (at least in the article mainspace). Really, I don't see how you could get this article deleted, unless
777:
680:
586:
393:
156:
138:
795:
719:
637:
530:
496:
416:
610:
511:
670:
555:
331:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
64:
20:
664:
549:
389:
315:
103:
48:
757:
606:
507:
206:
452:
574:
99:
773:
769:
765:
753:
582:
676:
219:
570:
95:
819:
200:
328:
84:
79:
411:
How is this anything other than an advertisement? It isn't even in operation yet!
222:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
218:, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Knowledge (XXG) articles about
69:
761:
305:
299:
278:
196:
578:
107:
59:
768:
where people can get pretty picky about article quality. I've avoided any
90:
190:
169:
785:
723:
688:
641:
614:
594:
534:
515:
500:
420:
401:
491:
I took the above off. They're justified, but I don't give a shit.
424:
132:
43:
15:
120:
776:
is controlled by left-wing partisans. Let's hope it isn't.
569:
particularly, characterizations of living persons such as
525:
and backwardness and in that it is truly contemptible.
448:
459:, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a
327:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
226:. To improve this article, please refer to the
8:
136:
115:Knowledge (XXG):Recent additions/2010/April
273:
164:
479:Learn how and when to remove this message
72:). The text of the entry was as follows:
506:wow... the attacks have started already.
341:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Conservatism
275:
166:
121:
440:contains content that is written like
236:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Television
826:Knowledge (XXG) Did you know articles
113:A record of the entry may be seen at
7:
851:Mid-importance Conservatism articles
321:This article is within the scope of
212:This article is within the scope of
155:It is of interest to the following
836:Low-importance television articles
30:on 25 October 2016. The result of
14:
856:WikiProject Conservatism articles
846:Start-Class Conservatism articles
344:Template:WikiProject Conservatism
429:
308:
298:
277:
199:
189:
168:
137:
47:
19:
841:WikiProject Television articles
831:Start-Class television articles
361:This article has been rated as
256:This article has been rated as
239:Template:WikiProject Television
26:This article was nominated for
58:appeared on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1:
388:It has been disambiguated as
335:and see a list of open tasks.
872:
786:18:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
724:18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
689:18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
642:18:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
615:17:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
595:16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
547:about the subject, in the
535:14:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
516:14:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
501:13:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
421:12:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
402:15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
367:project's importance scale
262:project's importance scale
360:
293:
255:
184:
163:
102:, and is being funded by
68:column on 26 April 2010 (
675:I've even mentioned the
632:it is a generalization.
324:WikiProject Conservatism
215:WikiProject Television
145:This article is rated
126:
671:Philadelphia Inquirer
556:Philadelphia Inquirer
461:neutral point of view
347:Conservatism articles
230:for the type of work.
149:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
124:
778:Phoenix and Winslow
681:Phoenix and Winslow
665:New York Daily News
587:Phoenix and Winslow
550:New York Daily News
453:promotional content
394:Phoenix and Winslow
390:television producer
316:Conservatism portal
242:television articles
224:join the discussion
220:television programs
104:Philadelphia Flyers
98:and new-media star
455:and inappropriate
151:content assessment
127:
78:... that start-up
752:Here's a link to
489:
488:
481:
381:
380:
377:
376:
373:
372:
272:
271:
268:
267:
207:Television portal
131:
130:
82:cable TV network
42:
41:
863:
575:Andrew Breitbart
484:
477:
473:
470:
464:
442:an advertisement
433:
432:
425:
349:
348:
345:
342:
339:
318:
313:
312:
311:
302:
295:
294:
289:
281:
274:
244:
243:
240:
237:
234:
228:style guidelines
209:
204:
203:
193:
186:
185:
180:
172:
165:
148:
142:
141:
133:
123:
100:Andrew Breitbart
51:
44:
23:
16:
871:
870:
866:
865:
864:
862:
861:
860:
816:
815:
677:Huffington Post
485:
474:
468:
465:
446:
434:
430:
409:
386:
346:
343:
340:
337:
336:
314:
309:
307:
287:
241:
238:
235:
232:
231:
205:
198:
178:
146:
125:Knowledge (XXG)
12:
11:
5:
869:
867:
859:
858:
853:
848:
843:
838:
833:
828:
818:
817:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
605:organization.
571:Kelsey Grammer
540:
539:
538:
537:
519:
518:
487:
486:
457:external links
437:
435:
428:
408:
405:
385:
382:
379:
378:
375:
374:
371:
370:
363:Mid-importance
359:
353:
352:
350:
333:the discussion
320:
319:
303:
291:
290:
288:Mid‑importance
282:
270:
269:
266:
265:
258:Low-importance
254:
248:
247:
245:
211:
210:
194:
182:
181:
179:Low‑importance
173:
161:
160:
154:
143:
129:
128:
118:
112:
111:
96:Kelsey Grammer
52:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
868:
857:
854:
852:
849:
847:
844:
842:
839:
837:
834:
832:
829:
827:
824:
823:
821:
797:
793:
792:72.228.177.92
789:
788:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
725:
721:
717:
716:72.228.177.92
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
672:
667:
666:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
643:
639:
635:
634:72.228.177.92
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
616:
612:
608:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
566:
564:
563:72.228.177.92
559:
557:
552:
551:
546:
545:news articles
536:
532:
528:
527:72.228.177.92
523:
522:
521:
520:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:
503:
502:
498:
494:
493:72.228.177.92
483:
480:
472:
462:
458:
454:
450:
444:
443:
438:This article
436:
427:
426:
423:
422:
418:
414:
413:72.228.177.92
406:
404:
403:
399:
395:
391:
383:
368:
364:
358:
355:
354:
351:
334:
330:
326:
325:
317:
306:
304:
301:
297:
296:
292:
286:
283:
280:
276:
263:
259:
253:
250:
249:
246:
229:
225:
221:
217:
216:
208:
202:
197:
195:
192:
188:
187:
183:
177:
174:
171:
167:
162:
158:
152:
144:
140:
135:
134:
119:
116:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
87:
86:
81:
77:
74:
73:
71:
67:
66:
61:
57:
53:
50:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
758:Thelmadatter
669:
663:
607:Thelmadatter
567:
554:
548:
544:
541:
508:Thelmadatter
490:
475:
466:
451:by removing
447:Please help
439:
410:
387:
362:
338:Conservatism
329:conservatism
322:
285:Conservatism
257:
213:
157:WikiProjects
89:
85:RightNetwork
83:
80:conservative
76:Did you know
75:
65:Did you know
63:
56:RightNetwork
55:
54:A fact from
35:
407:Notability?
147:Start-class
70:check views
820:Categories
762:bellwether
760:is a good
585:. Thanks.
469:April 2010
449:improve it
233:Television
176:Television
579:Ed Snider
108:Ed Snider
88:features
60:Main Page
668:and the
553:and the
384:untitled
28:deletion
365:on the
260:on the
91:Frasier
62:in the
774:WP:AFD
770:WP:BLP
766:WP:DYK
754:WP:AFD
583:WP:BLP
153:scale.
106:owner
94:star
796:talk
782:talk
720:talk
685:talk
638:talk
611:talk
591:talk
577:and
531:talk
512:talk
497:talk
417:talk
398:talk
36:keep
34:was
565:.
357:Mid
252:Low
822::
784:)
722:)
687:)
640:)
613:)
593:)
573:,
533:)
514:)
499:)
419:)
400:)
392:.
798:)
794:(
780:(
718:(
683:(
673:.
636:(
609:(
589:(
558:.
529:(
510:(
495:(
482:)
476:(
471:)
467:(
463:.
445:.
415:(
396:(
369:.
264:.
159::
117:.
110:?
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
