Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy about media coverage of the 2009 Greek debt crisis


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  02:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversy about media coverage of the 2009 Greek debt crisis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

POV essay  -- note the section "4. Inaccuracies and stereotyping". An article written on this basis is not NPOV, and I think this is unfixable. See the article's talk p. for further discussion. �  DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  01:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge - While some of this information could fit very well into wikipedia, it should not have its own page. The relevant information should be summarized and rewritten to a NPOV and included in Greek government-debt crisis.
 * Delete and or Merge with qualification. As the editor who first tagged this for NPOV obviously I concur that it fails encyclopedic neutrality. I also have serious doubts that this is fixable. But I would be willing to reconsider if the article's creator wants to take a stab at a major rewrite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - hopeless POV essay. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete An essay which really can't be made into an encyclopedia article. But the authors have worked hard to assemble a remarkably long list of references. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think the article suffered more from OR than POV and edited it down to just the content that was supported by secondary sources that discussed media bias. Please review the results and reconsider your !votes. I am neutral on the outcome with very slight lean towards merge. Joja  lozzo  02:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pruning, but I'm still going with "delete". The title says "Controversy" but can there really be a controversy when there is only one side and the other side who believe that the media coverage wasn't particularly biased don't bother to reply? (Well, no more biased than any other news.) The article would be more aptly titled Complaining about media coverage of the 2009 Greek debt crisis and that makes it clear that this isn't worth an encyclopedia article. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2014 (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.