Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of corporate public relation flubs and disasters


 * 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.  Sango 123  00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

List of corporate public relation flubs and disasters
Delete - POV list and has been around for 3+ months with only 11 entries to date. Brian G 02:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete.A good list with objective criteria in this area would actually be very useful, but this is not that creature and will never be due to the NPOV problem the title creates. Erechtheus 02:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, this one borders on the bizarre with what's in there at the moment. BigHaz 02:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is inherently subjective and ill-defined. I would be surprised if fully objective criteria could be developed, even if the title were to be changed. Agent 86 02:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the best chance would be a compilation of incidents from peer reviewed journals or something of that nature. Erechtheus 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Delete' Could be an interesting article, but it is a sparse and uninformative list as is. There have been MANY more PR flubs than this!Edison 05:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Hyphen5 05:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. rootology 08:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. RandyWang ( raves/review me! ) 08:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if the content were not POV, the name certainly is. Jacqui ★ 14:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I hold with Erechtheus. The topic is worthy of a thoughtful article&mdash;probably with a more encyclopedic title&mdash;and most probably not this one. Williamborg (Bill) 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as inherently POV; the only way I could see an encyclopedically valid article on the topic would be by reference to a reliable source that made such a list, like a well-regarded mass media or industry media publication. --MCB 21:01, 30 July 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.