Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the BBC (second nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was merge and redirect. Interesting to note that the original version of this article was speedy deleted over a year ago; it contained nothing but a wikilink to John Pilger and an external link. Anyways, it appears that the merge to BBC News has taken place, so I'll do the redirect and we're done here. Mackensen (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Update
I have tried to consoldiate all criticism of BBC News from several articles in a (I hope, balanced) section of the BBC News entry. See BBC_News

pit-yacker 19:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote
Delete Putting it politely, the article is a mess. It just duplicates information in other articles over and over (usually in the main articles such as BBC and BBC News. The article has no structure, again and again returning to the premise that the BBC is biased against America, but at the same time it isnt.

I note it was previously nominated in December. A number of people at this point suggested it should be kept and cleaned up. However, this has not happened. IMHO the article should be deleted and anything of any worth (if there is anything) moved to BBC News (which is what the article is about).

I have reservations about any merger as: 1. The article doesnt really have any substantial debate it appears to use the likes of personal opinions, newspaper leaders, and blogs (often from those with a vested interest in casting BBC News in a bad light) to cobble together the criticism. For example is there any strong evidence that the BBC is anti-american? If the BBC's coverage of Katrina is evidence of anti-americanism some of the US networks are far more anti-american than the BBC. IMHO a blog is not a source worthy of an encyclopedia. On the other side (without looking) I'm sure there are plenty of the above which show the BBC in a good light.

2. Most of the stuff is covered elsewhere anyway.

pit-yacker 01:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Coredesat 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge any new information - that which is not found in other articles - with the appropriate articles on the BBC (BBC or BBC News for instance). Viridae 02:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Scented Guano 04:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. BBC is woefully incomplete. Anything that can be salvaged from this article belongs there. --Alex S 05:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge. On the title alone, I was inclined toward delete.  But it seems to present just enough suggestion of real encyclopedic content that I can imagine a real article with this title.  Still, merging to BBC wouldn't be anything terrible either.  LotLE × talk  06:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into BBC. Add a mention that the interactive World Cup services don't work in my village.  -- GWO 06:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, "Criticism of" articles are rarely a good idea. Write an NPOV article on the BBC. Don't split off criticism into another article. Having a section labelled "Criticism" within an article is bad enough (unless criticism is a big part of the subject)... but specific criticism articles are even worse. They just end up as dumping grounds for whinges, gripes and bias. - Motor (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge anything that is salvagable into BBC, then delete. Doesn't warrant a separate article, is badly POV, and needs a lot of cleanup. Paddles TC 09:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it needs a lot of tidying up. An organisation the size and influence of the BBC is bound to attract criticism which should be presented in a NPOV manner on Wikipedia. Markb 10:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not within the BBC article? Isn't that where it belongs? -- GWO


 * Merge & redirect, as its not too long to add to the main BBC article. Do not prejudice against recreation if it ever gets long enough to support its own subpage.  JeffBurdges 13:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever is salvagable per GWO.--Isotope23 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with Motor above -- MrDolomite 16:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge The article can be a useful one as a main page for the criticism section on the BBC page, but it needs to be practically totally rewritten. I'm willing to help find sources for the rewriting, but barring that, salvaging what's good and incoporating it into the section at BBC. &mdash; ዮም   (Yom)  |  contribs  •  Talk  17:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge salvagable material into the main BBC article, dump the rest. Tachyon01 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - criticism would be better placed as a balance to what is being criticised. Ace of Risk 22:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Criticism articles are not NPOV. Calsicol 22:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Calsicol Bwithh 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge any decent facts to the Criticism at the BBC article.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  06:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve this article. The BBC has produced an abundance of editorials posing as fact regarding Israel. Most recently, the BBC reported that the IDF had killed children in Gaza, when it turned out to be a Hamas "work accident." Potterseesall 08:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is not an argument to keep this article. It is an argument to change the BBC News one. - Motor (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Not NPOV. Anything useful should be in Hutton Report (if not already there in more organised form), the rest reads like random jottings for an essay in progress that hasn't changed in six months. Consequently reads as virtual nonsense. Lines like "More plausibly, it has been accused of supporting the US and UK governments more often than not. During the Falklands war, for example, it was attacked as traitorous for airing doubts about the war..." are simply non-sequiturs. Despite the futile fake objectivity of this one line, all the rest of the article is typical non-NPOV Beeb-bashing. --DaveG12345 08:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as per the other merge voters--Kalsermar 18:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reason as last time. Valid topic. --JJay 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to the BBC News article. Yamaguchi先生 07:09, 29 June 2006 (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.