Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bank of America controversies


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Bank of America controversies

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to be no npov and does not fall under csd10 i don't see why this article cant be merged with the original bank of America one ,Seems to be attacking the company also.  Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 06:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article completely disregards WP:NPOV: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia". Perhaps some of the content could be brought into the article on the bank itself (put into context) or an article about the banking system in general - but this article as it stands is clearly unbalanced and gives the impression that it is the result of a grudge of some kind. I42 (talk) 07:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete while a "controversy" page may in some cases be encyclopedic, the use of the plural indicates it is an indiscriminate list of gripes that an anti-BoA editor has collected to push an anti-BoA point of view. There is a reason why "controversy" is on our list of words to avoid: it often, when used incorrectly, assumes a point of view against the subject. This appears to be no different. This page can never be neutral because it inherently discourages/forbids any sources that are positive about the BoA, thus creating an unworkable undue weight problem. The solution to dealing with this is deletion, as it can't be dealt with in any editorial way. Sceptre (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sceptre sums it up, this is incredibly soapy.  Rinse cycle, please! -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 14:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:SOAP? This article does not fall into soap. First it passes:

''Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.''

This is objective. I believe the SOAP you are talking about is:

''Scandal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. ''

This only applies to people it says that it would be required to meet a very high standard this article has been cited by New York Times, CNN Money, and Dollar & Sense. Valoem  talk  13:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Please explain how this article is not NPOV? Criticism is NPOV if it is cited. When a bank is involved in this many controversies you would be removing factual verfible information. Therefore it would not be a NPOV instead it would heavily favor a controversial bank. Keep in mind this is not a vote policy trumps.

''Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.''

Everything is cited and sourced. This is a well written article that also pass this excat policy. NPOV. Valoem  talk  14:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The presentation of facts, and even the facts themselves, can be biased; otherwise, the world's news reporters would go out of business. Verifiability is not synonymous with neutrality. Sceptre (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The key is in so we assert as many of them as possible - this article does not do that. It selects only facts that support a particular viewpoint, and thus there is a NPOV issue. Consider two similar examples: (1) Many life-preserving drugs have side-effects; focussing purely on the side-effects would erroneouly paint a negative picture of their value; (2) Children contribute to carbon emissions; focussing purely on children would erroneously attribute blame on them for global warming. The facts need to be put in context and balanced. This article focusses on certain aspects ("the side effects") of one particular bank ("the childen"). I42 (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment According to you wikipedia can not have articles on criminals or people surrounded in controversy. Neutrality is determined by wheather or not the article is written in from neutral point of view which this article is. If The New York Times criticizes someone wikipedia can cite that. Comments such as "miscellaneous matters, some totally trivial" seem to fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Valoem   talk  13:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as the article is about well RS sourced controversies that involve Bank of America. As long as personal attacks against the bank ("I don't like them"), personal grievances about the bank's policies ("They took my money"), and wikipedia editor comments are out of this article, I believe it should be kept as it reflects what is being said by Reliable Sources about the bank and it's policies. Indeed to not have this article would ignore the fact that there are reliable sourced criticisms of the Bank. The BofA article is long enough without merging this article into it. That's my $0.02 . Peace, rkmlai (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A hodgepodge of miscellaneous matters, some totally trivial, like the re-possessed car that is the final paragraph; some involving primarily other companies with BofA only peripherally involved; some possibly suitable for inclusion in the main article. Although its not a natural person and doesn't fall under BLP, I think this article might be seen as falling under the G10 Speedy provision for articles whose only purpose is to denigrate their subject. DGG (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.