Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States journalism scandals

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. John254 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United States journalism scandals

United States journalism scandals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

inherently NPOV page which seems to list every journalistic oversight of logic, mostly about scandals about living people, at least one entry is about a page that got resoundingly deleted at AFD Will ^(talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- Add and Fact Check Article. This article is a good example of some of the major and minor scandals in our society's journalism and media function. Although the article could be improved upon by adding more sources and links that could lead readers to possible show of cases, it should not be removed entirely from publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.100.80 (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep -- and improve the article. This article has been around for a long time, and is part or the "Journalism" project. Questions; (a) how is this article "inherently" NPOV and (b) if so, why not improve it? The Walter Annenberg scandal alone, along with numerous and highly notable modern examples, clearly justifies the existence of the article. WNDL42 (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The word "scandal". You can't make NPOV out of something when its title is POV. Will ^(talk) 22:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the frequent use of the term "journalism scandal" makes inclusion here on Wikipedia appropriate. WNDL42 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth considering a move to (e.g.) List of alleged journalism scandals in the United States. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wndl42: it doesn't. Scandal, by definition, is a negative word. And Dhartung, seriously - your solution to POV is to put weasel words in? Will ^(talk) 23:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so much for olive branches. --Dhartung | Talk 08:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a well-referenced list and deletion at AFD does not require deletion of similar material from all articles. Every time one happens there is a discussion of historically similar incidents, so this is clearly notable. The idea that such a list is inherently POV really doesn't fly. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The list is useful and the idea that it violates NPOV to call Duranty, e.g., a "scandal" boggles the mind. For some journalistic scandals the idea that it wasn't a scandal is what WP policy calls a "fringe" view. To allow more controversial designations I wouldn't mind adding "..., actual or alleged" just to make it clear that if there's a big enough fuss it can be mentioned even if the underlying facts are arguably not a scandal. (The definitional sentence that leads off says this, but putting it in the title somehow is ok too.) The article is the mereest stub of what it might be... The entries each have the potential to be POV forks (WNDL42's scandalous "Kuhner" project is a stinking example of POV run wild), but the solution is to fix them, not delete a useful reference article. Andyvphil (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above.Biophys (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this is a useful article with summaries. The edit history of this shows that usually a consensus is quickly reached and even the controversial ones come to consensus in time. Jmcnamera (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It's become too much of a stomping ground for right wingers wanting to show up what they call the "MSM". Broken links and sketchy "cites" abound. Check out the details, including refs, for this, this and this for starters. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - An extremely encyclopedic and interesting subject. If there's actual problems with it, fix them, as per Andyvphil. The name is somewhat problematic, but that can be fixed as well. FCYTravis (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep Having vandals is no reason whatsoever to delete an article, only a reason to fight vandals and their work. The article discusses facts; Encyclopedias are supposed to contain facts. Hmains (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2008 (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.