Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bell Canada


 * 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 11:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Bell Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not neutral Bill C. Riemers (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

OVERVIEW

Below are many reasons why this page should be fundamental. But ultimately the main reason this page should be deleted is because wikipedia is not for rants, blogs, or complaints. It is an encyclopedia that should present important facts in a neutral manner. In would be much more neutral to list these facts on the Bell Canada page instead of having a criticism page. Bill C. Riemers (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not Nuetral

The article is not neutral. Information factual information can be including on the Bell Canada page. By the very nature of collecting critism together on one page it can't be neutral. People aren't going to post great things about Bell on a criticism page, just negative items. See WP:NOTSOAPBOXBill C. Riemers (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not Battle Ground

Wikipedia is not a place to wage battles against individuals or corporations. WP:BATTLEGROUNDBill C. Riemers (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not Attack

Wikipedia articles should not be created to attack a person. By legal definition a corporation is a person. WP:ATPBill C. Riemers (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not Notable

While as a major telecommunication company Bell Canada is a notable context for an article. The article has failed to establish that critism of Bell is notable enough to justify an article. WP:NotabilityBill C. Riemers (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears the nominator is not familiar with similar existing pages on Wikipedia for other large companies. If this one is deleted -all will have to go to preserve consistency. Just my $.2. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Criticism of pretty much everything: List of criticism and critique articles. Rotten regard       Softnow  00:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And even that came in for criticism. Rotten regard       Softnow  00:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely you are entitled to your opinion. Maybe the other critism pages you pointed out should also be deleted, maybe they should not.  I have not reviewed those pages.  This discussion is only about one page in particular.  I would not expect to open the Encyclopædia Britannica C volume and see Criticism of Bell Canada.  Any negative facts would just be in the Bell Canada article.  Why would one want wikipedia hold itself to a lower standard of neutrality? Bill C. Riemers (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Corporate attack page. If there are major, substantive, historically important negative incidents these should be presented, in appropriate context, with appropriate neutrality and balance, on the company's page. This is a hit job and inherently violates NPOV. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What motivates this shit? Bandwidth throttling. Quote me. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - i've created this page to group the numerous notable criticisms that would be too exhaustive to post on their respective individual pages. Both the "Not Attack" and "Not Notable" reasons given to delete this page are false.  Criticism isn't equivalent to an attack (for example, CBC and MSN aren't "attacking" Bell, simply stating out the facts) and it is in fact notable due to mainstream media outlets, such as the two i've mentioned, tech journalists such as Michael Geist consumer advocacy groups such as OpenMedia.ca all report criticism which affects Bell Canada.  And since there is no attacking of Bell Canada, simply stating the facts, classifying this page as a "battle ground" is also inappropriate.  This leaves one valid reason, "not neutral", for considering the deletion of this article.  However, the title says it all: "Criticism of Bell Canada" is a page to find notable criticisms which affect that large telecom.  The page could use a cleanup, removing poorly sourced or unsourced materials, but since the rest of its information is important and notable, the article should be kept instead of deleted.  --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

*Keep On notability: The article has reliable sources (CBC News, the Toronto Star, Ars Technica) that are independent of the subject. On the other 3 points: (as they can pretty much be addressed together) It feels like your point is that the reason for criticism articles is to complain about how bad x is. To me, it seems to be more about saying that people complain about x and why. It doesn't constitute a personal attack on something the law defines as a person to say that "y thinks badly of x because of z" when it is published in a reputable news source. The reason that this particular one exists is that someone was concerned the main article would be too long, but I would not be entirely opposed to adding more of the criticisms to the main article. Just my two cents. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Gene93k, Just wondering why this has not also been included in wp:WikiProject Canada as well as wp:WikiProject BusinessOttawahitech (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel it should be included there and in other places the door is open to you to do so yourself. It is no-one's job to do this and no-one can be criticised, even by implication, for not doing so. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Fiddle Faddle, This was not at all meant as criticism - I am just tring to have this discussion notice more widely circulated before time to contribute here runs out Ottawahitech (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The door is open to you. You could talk about it, or you could do it :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - well sourced article. The topic of "Criticism of Bell Canada" fulfills all notability criteria on its own. Notability is shown by many independent significant references. A412  (Talk &bull; C) 05:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic and title are inherently not neutral, contrary to core policy: "Articles mustn't take sides..." Warden (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I see this page as an attack page. It is not appropriate material for any encyclopaedia. The existence of similar articles is not a reason to retain it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful information. No harm in keeping it.  The nebulous idea of what is and is not "appropriate" for some snooty concept of "encyclopaedia" only harms us.  We don't have the space constraints of a traditional printed encyclopedia.  If it's verifiable information, notable and reasonably well organized, it belongs in this encyclopedia.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete difficult decision for me, as I hate Bell Canada with a passion! (250$ bill - what?) However, this article does suffer from neutrality issues.  It is essentially a WP:COATRACK. Sources are about Bell Canada, not "Criticism of Bell Canada".  An article like "Bell Canada billing practices", which covered all aspects of Bell's billing practices, both positive and negative, would satisfy our NPOV requirements.  This article does not. If this was a BLP, there would be little argument. (Not suggesting corps. should have the same rights as people ;)).  These "Criticism of" articles fail WP:NOTADVOCACY, they present one side of the story, and have a "point" - namely that Bell sucks. (Which may well be true, but it is subjective, and not within our mandate).  The Interior  (Talk) 19:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  05:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  00:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete — This is essentially a WP:POVFORK. The concept itself of criticism particular to this company does not rise to the level of WP:GNG. Negative press, which may be understood as critical by readers, does not necessarily report that there is criticism of the company. Criticism may be implicit and topically relevant to the company itself, but criticism most clearly merits a stand-alone article when the topic of criticism of the company is what's covered. Contents of this article that are actually noteworthy should be folded into the Bell Canada article, even as its own ===Criticism=== or event-based subsection, as due weight indicates. Not every bit of negative press will be of enduring significance; I expect a summary statement supported by several reliable citations would be sufficient. JFHJr (㊟) 06:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Rather than outright deletion, merging the sourced content to the Bell Canada article's Criticism section would satisfy WP:PRESERVE. The Criticism section at the Bell Canada article currently has a 'Main article' template that directs readers to this article. If this article is deleted, the criticism section of the Bell Canada article would remain as significantly devoid of content, despite sourced criticism that has occurred. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The amount of things to criticize Bell Canada for just keeps growing, which is why a separate article is more appropriate than a huge "Criticism" section. Criticism can also extend to Bell Media subjects (such as them having almost no Canadian/in-house shows, a vast majority of American simulcasts, playing VNRs for their store The Source, etc.).  It gets annoying for someone to have to read different articles (such as Bell Canada, Bell Internet, Bell TV, Virgin Mobile Canada, Bell Media, The Source, etc.) to find the numerous criticism for Bell Canada.  Why add this complication?  There should just be one unifying page for Bell Canada criticism.  --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, by lumping the various criticisms of all the subsidiaries into a single page, you get a grossly imbalanced view of the company's practices. From a maintenance standpoint, it also becomes a magnet for poorly sourced gripes from unhappy customers. If Bell TV is doing something dodgy, it should be related on that page.  The Interior  (Talk) 22:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea is that reputable criticism is acceptable on Wikipedia, while small-small criticism such as that from customers is best left to other places. If the Criticism article is deleted, the main Bell Canada article's criticism section will need a  tag too.  That can get quite messy!  --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I personally would be equally happy if the article could be rewritten to be balanced criticism. e.g. If I critic a book, I mention both positive and negative aspects about that book.  Criticism does not need to be just bad.  That is the reason why criticism articles about companies and sometimes even persons are allowed.  If I look on places like www.broadbandreports.com, I see 60% of Bell Canada customers are happy with there service.  As such I would expect there is more positive criticism available.  In the end, authors need to present a balance view and let the reader decide for themselves how they feel about the company.Bill C. Riemers (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merger WP:CSECTION - Articles dedicated to negative criticism of a topic are discouraged because they tend to be a a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy.Moxy (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2012 (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.