Talk:Newport News asbestos litigation

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it is the topic of dozens of reliable secondary sources. The sources cited are all accurately described in the article. Classyklowngrasper (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Significant problems: undue weight, reliable sourcing, and extreme POV
I have removed a large amount of content that runs substantial afoul of our policies on the neutral point of view, reliable sourcing, and proper and improper weight.


 * This reference is falsely attributed to a local TV station. In fact, the cite is a press release, circulated through Business Wire, from a special-interest group, the Institute for Legal Reform of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (see here), promoting a "report" commissioned and published by the group.


 * This cite from "Legal Newsline" ("dip") is the same thing, a republished press release from the Institute for Legal Reform. As the cite itself says, "The ILR owns Legal Newsline." The extensive reliance on this cite - all while failing to attribute the point of view - runs completely afoul of our policies on NPOV and undue weight.


 * The report makes a number of extraordinary and negative claims: "Newport News lawyers specializing in asbestos claims regularly manipulate litigation..." and "Solvent firms targeted for suits often have tenuous connections to asbestos." This broad and sweeping language, repeated in Wikipedia's own voice, taking over something like 70% of the article, and cited only to an business trade group avowedly apposed to these cases, is completely unacceptable. Again, NPOV, UNDUE, RS.


 * Finally, at the end of the article, there a Washington Examiner cite. Not only is the Washington Examiner a low-quality if not outright unreliable source, there's absolutely no need to cite it because there are other cites, from high-quality sources, that say the same thing. See Citation overkill.

--Neutralitytalk 21:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)