Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the CBC

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. almost the entire article was unsourced, the only source was a poll, nothing to merge Secret ^account 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the CBC

Criticism of the CBC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete No sources, POV (by definition), looks like a personal essay. Editing history of the article's principal author suggests the article may originate with one of the CBC's rivals. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete no reliable sources, for that matter, there are no sources at all in the article. Yahel Guhan 05:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. GreenJoe (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete CJCurrie (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Mh29255 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. GreenGourd (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Essay in violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge anything that is sourced and verified with the main article. Otherwise, it's just a POV fork. 23skidoo (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge then Delete. Give the editors a bit of time to merge this with CBS, then delete it as a POV fork. Malinaccier (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean CBC not CBS, right? meshach (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• To be fair, a lot of this article was cut and pasted directly out of the primary article — I remember almost every word of it and even contributed some of it myself in the first place (such as the controversy around 22 Minutes and Air Farce airing on Newsworld.) Merge the valid, sourced stuff back into the main article from whence it came; delete any content that's too POV. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete.Bless sins (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Improve you should all take note of what Bearcat said. Most of the article was cut n pasted from the parent article. The reason no sources appear in the article is because the original author forgot to cut n paste the sources that go along with it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's more likely it wasn't sourced to being with in which case it would have to be removed anyway. I think it would be a good idea for a few editors to do some research and find some sourced criticism that can be added but right now all we have are generalities of the "some people think" and "a common criticism is" variety which are not acceptable in any article.Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Bearcat. As a public broadcaster, CBC has been subject to public criticism. Why lose that content? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell *none* of the criticism is sourced and much of it seems to be off the top of people's heads (ie it sounds like someone's essay). I'm sure there is a lot of published criticism out there that can be sourced and it should be included in the CBC article but simply merging unsourced content won't do. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't understand what you mean when you say "none," Reggie. There are two CRTC sources right there in the article.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't notice that. So the CBC's unsuccessful petition to allow Newsworld to carry Air Farce and 22 Minutes is sourced as is their complaint regarding CTV Newsnet.(That's really only one criticism since the article isn't about CBC's criticisms of CTV). I have no problem moving those two sources to the main CBC article (though a lot of the commentary about the issue looks POV to me and needs to be edited). That a rather minor part of the article - the rest of the criticisms in the article are unsourced. Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• We do have "criticism" articles for subjects that are criticized less frequently and less publicly than the CBC. So I do think that some sort of article could exist. But the content there now would have to be significantly pruned and I don't think what's left would constitute the basis for an article when it could otherwise be merged. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:36, 24 January 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.