Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major Media 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 DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Media Scandals

Major Media Scandals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article appears to be a disparate collection of items of what may be called fraudulent media reports, although none of the terms have been defined. Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Ohconfucius 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - too vague, ultimately a POV list. SkierRMH,08:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and POV issues that would result from deciding what was a major media scandal.- WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 12:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No clear criteria for what is considered "major". —ShadowHalo 12:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup and change the name to "False media allegations". I find the article useful, it just needs to be formatted properly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Article also suffers from POV. No inclusion of FOX, Weakly Standard, etc - F.A.A.F.A. 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete irreversibly POV --Infrangible 03:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Might work as a category with a different name and for well-sourced balanced articles specifically on media reporting scandals. But this version isn't working out as per all above. Bwithh 03:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unmaitainable as a fair list. Currently I belive that the "major" used in the title means "fairly recent and that I've heard about reported in US news media". A category with the same sort of content might be useful since it would more transparently reflect the inherent incompleteness. Pascal.Tesson 22:21, 16 December 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.