Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Comcast


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Comcast

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is inherently bias and doesn't give a fair picture of the company as a whole. A lot of the topics in the article are also extremely trivial, regional, could apply to any company, and probably would not be worth mentioning on their own. For instance someone committing theft while installing Comcast cable. Some of the sources are also dubious. While I would have no problem with whatever is notable being merged with Comcast, I see zero reason there should be a separate article just for the criticism. Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep At a glance I'd have said this is certainly a keep. We do have many other criticism articles on companies, that in itself isn't a problem, especially for companies that manage to generate lots of controversy and end up making the main article too long (eg Criticism of Facebook). But I do see your objection - there is a bunch of original research and dubious sources in there. It's an article which needs work, but Comcast has managed to generate lots of controversy, as is noted in that article, and in the main Comcast article, both in section and in lead, so I don't think it's useful to salvage and merge into Comcast. It needs tidying up, and better sources (which do exist), but it's certainly salvageable. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can say at this point the merging after "tidying up" would make the Comcast article to long. There's a lot that should be cut out. AfDs aren't cleanup anyway. Also, it's not really relevent if there are other criticism articles IMO. You can justify not deleting any article on the grounds that similar articles in a similar state exist. Adamant1 (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's an assumption (that after cleanup it would be too short). You're right that AfDs aren't cleanup - an article in need of cleanup doesn't mean it must be deleted. The question here is one of notability, and I think sufficient notability and significant coverage exists for this matter. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't the only reason to do an AfD and I'm pretty sure an article inharently lacking neutrality is a valid reason for one. It doesn't matter how good the sourcing is if an article is extremely slanted in how it presents the subject of it and can't be fixed. The main reason to merge would be to be have both the good and bad of the company in the same article. So people get a neutral view point. There's no way to do that with a "criticism" article and you can't just add a "positive things about Comcast" section to balance it out. Adamant1 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable, cleanup is a matter for editing rather than deletion, and it's not Wikipedia's job to provide false balance. The "N" in NPOV means reflecting the sources fairly, not saying one good thing every time we say one bad thing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Except how can you fairly reflect the sources when you can't add the positive ones to the article because they aren't critical of the company? It's not a fair representation of the sources if you can only use ones in the article that have a single position and have to exclude others that don't fit it. Adamant1 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the case. A reliable source will explain both the criticism and the company's response, as well as any extenuating circumstances. Having a "Criticism" article does not mean that only damaging information is allowed to be presented. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notability is the main purpose of doing an AfD, and the sources on this article clearly demonstrate notability of the topic. The nominator asserts that "criticism of" articles are inherently "slanted.. and can't be fixed". This is not the case; it simply requires the use of reliable sources to summarize and explain the criticism. The inclusion of some trivial information and poor sources should be cleared up by normal editing, not a nomination for deletion. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - criticism spin-off articles are fine assuming there is sustained coverage of said criticism, as is the case here. In addition, the Comcast article is already size at > 120k bites and as such keeping the criticism article's content separate will improve readability. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2020 (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.