Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Nortel


 * 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   redirect to Nortel. Consensus is that this and similar content should be in Nortel, if in Wikipedia at all. Editorial consensus needs to determine what content, if any, is to be merged from the history to Nortel.  Sandstein  06:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Nortel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Already requested speedy  deletion and blanked as a courtesy,  the page was restored by user: Born2cycle and the template removed. The article appears to be   one-sided and biased. Wikipedia is neither a platform for grieveance, nor investigative journalism. However well  it  might  be referenced, the article is non  encyclopedic. Kudpung (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  —Kudpung (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Kudpung (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * support deletion the purpose of the article is blatantly to criticize the company and not to provide encyclopedic content: WP:POVFORK Active  Banana    (bananaphone  14:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion requests like this are attempting to solve a problem that does not exist.  Of course the only purpose of an article named "Criticism of X" is to criticize X.  Of course it's one-sided and biased - any critical topic article is inherently so.  A section of WP:CFORK, Articles whose subject is a POV, specifically allows articles like this, and clearly states, "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view."  We have myriads of POV articles like this, including many, many other criticism articles.  Should all of them be deleted?  There is nothing wrong or unencyclopedic about legitimate well-sourced critical material.  "Encyclopedic" does not mean "would be in a traditional published-on-paper encyclopedia"... traditional encyclopedias are limited in space in a way that we aren't, and so naturally have more restrictive criteria for inclusion. I, for one, stumbled onto this article and found it to be informative. The article could be improved, to be sure, but, since it's apparently accurate and properly sourced information, I see no harm for the reader. For example, if a reader is thinking about buying Nortel stock, or considering a position of employment there, or writing an article or report about the company, he or she might go to Nortel, see the link to this criticism article (ideally there would be a summary at the main article), and this information could prove to be useful.  Again, I see only benefit, and no harm, for our readers, in keeping it.  --Born2cycle (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is certainly harm for our readers and editors to think that Wikipedia is a place where they can collect random bits and arrange them in a manner to push a point of view for or against a person or comanpy. And yes, other crappy articles like this should be deleted or completely re-written not used as evidence to keep another bad "article". Active Banana    (bananaphone  15:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask about other crappy articles. I asked about other POV fork Criticism articles, like Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of Microsoft, Criticism of Google etc.  Or is it your opinion that all articles like that are examples of WP:OTHERCRAP and violations of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP? Are all these articles harmful to our readers too?  What's the qualitative difference?  --Born2cycle (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You've misinterpreted "Articles whose subject is a POV". "Articles whose subject is a POV" are articles like Evolution and Creationism, subjects which are a point of view. The subject of "Criticism of Nortel" is still Nortel, because we're still talking about Nortel. "Criticism of ..." articles are "Article spinouts", where there is too much material in the main article so it is spun out to a content fork. There's no need to do this with Nortel, because there isn't enough criticism material to warrant a spinout—the main article contains all the material here just fine. Rather, the only point to this article as it stands is to "highlight negative [...] viewpoints or facts", making it a non-legit POV fork. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge or keep and delete. There isn't too much material here, so I think it could easily be merged into Nortel without a loss of information. However, the company and situations surrounding it have attracted a considerable share of criticism in the past, so I think that this article does have validity; I don't think that it's a simple WP:POVFORK. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears as though there is no material here that is not in Nortel already. Since the "cricitism" material isn't bogging down that article, there's no need for this content fork. As I said above there has been considerable criticism of Nortel, but the proper rationale behind a content fork is merely navigational. Until there is a navigation need for a content fork (ie until Nortel is navigationally overwhelmed with criticism), the only purpose this article serves is to "highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts" which is unacceptable per WP:CFORK. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have acknowledged that Nortel has attracted considerable criticism, yet you are voting "delete". I am confused - isn't the object here to build good articles rather than remove material? Why not help build this information instead? Ottawahitech (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If I (or you, or anyone else) wanted to add additional criticism of Nortel, the place to do so would be at Nortel, not here. Only once Nortel is overwhelmed with criticism should it be split to a new article. Building Criticism of Nortel before completing Nortel doesn't make sense—all the information here would be more useful in Nortel, where it could be presented in context (just as in a perfect world, Criticism of Microsoft would be in Microsoft, but there simply isn't enough space for it). -M.Nelson (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a side note, I compared the length of the Nortel article on Wikipedia with that of  Microsoft, and Nortel comes out on top, however viewership of Nortel wiki article is about 3% that of Microsoft in 2010. But, if you are volunteering to insert criticism into the Nortel page? - be my guest. Just don’t forget to keep checking that your insertions at Wikipedia are not removed on the sly when you are not looking. Good luck. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Smerge (selectively merge) to Nortel. No point in allowing someone to go off and create an article where negative news about some article's subject is selectively displayed in an unbalanced way to make some point. A more balanced presentation is likely in the main article. Much of the content is not "criticism" so much as "negative news." A report that someone was charged with something, or someone got a big bonus, is not criticism per se. There is a difference. "Criticism" would be some editorial writer, congressman, consumer rights group, consumer testing magazine, or other spokesman actually "criticizing" the company. Edison (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nortel. Readers should get the whole story in the same place.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I would just like to provide a bit of background here: I am the person who created this article, after trying to contribute to the main Nortel article and having my entries deleted on a regular basis for many months. I know I am not a good writer, but I do fair research and provide reliable url's in support. I was hoping, since this article is of tremendous importance to Canadians, that others would step in to help, and am heartened to see the vote to Keep by Born2cycle. I hope sense will prevail here, but realize this battle is only the beginning of the war, unless  others step in to help. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Other that the statement "John Roth says he's cleared," everything in the Criticism of Nortel article is present in the Nortel article. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your statement, Isaacl, is incorrect. How can you say that everything is present with one small exception???!!! It is simple enough to search Wikipedia and to illustrate that you have been methodically removing sections from this article. Take for example: your edit of 12:28, 3 April 2010 Isaacl (talk | contribs) (5,122 bytes) (→Government bailouts: Remove info that lacked citations characterizing events as bailouts or controversial). Compare the table of contents in the article | before that date and the article of today. Where did the government bailout section (referred to in the introduction) disappear to?
 * I am sorry to say, but I have come to the conclusion that you are insincere - you must remember you have been re-reverting this section for months? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That material, which I also later removed, is valid in the Nortel article but not in a Criticism of Nortel article. There is nothing in those citations that explicitly criticises Nortel; by including that stuff here, you're declaring it a criticism, which is original research. Just because Fact X is referenced, we can't necessarily include it as a criticism: it can be included only if Nortel was criticised for Fact X is referenced. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The information is present within the History section of the Nortel article. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment, and as such, additions you make can be edited for conciseness, better integration into the topic, avoiding undue weight, and so forth. Just because your addition has not remained exactly as you entered it does not mean that it has been deleted. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge some portions carefully. the presumption is against such articles, and there is not sufficient content for this one. The presentation furthermore is very close to an attack piece.   DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 19 October 2010 (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.