Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Petroleum Industry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism of the petroleum industry
'Criticism' of a particular person or organization as a standalone article without context is not a viable standalone wikipedia article, and may be slanderous/libelous. Taking criticism out of context of the larger discussion is misleading, and at any rate is a reproduction of the criticism section already included the articles of the respective underlying people/groups. This article in particular is an exact copy of the text from the ExxonMobil and Chevron entries, encapsulating all the negative complaints about these companies without capturing any of the balanced discussion of the essence of the larger articles. Strong delete. Elambeth 22:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Badly fails WP:NPOV. Charlie 22:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think the possibility of slander or libel really applies, but nonetheless I have to agree with the issue of WP:NPOV. I say Merge and Delete to ExxonMobil and Chevron, on the grounds that there may be enough data to save and merge. --Dennisthe2 00:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - There are lots of "Criticism of ..." articles in wikipedia, I don't see how this is any different. For instance Criticism of Tony Blair, Criticisms of socialism, Criticism of Microsoft and even Criticism of Wikipedia. Improve, link content with Petroleum industry, but no need to delete. Wikipidian 02:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- The problem isn't so much precedent to keep versus wish to delete, it's a question of neutral point of view. The article itself is just direct copy, and may be a nebulous attempt to separate the criticism into its own article. The largest problem I see, however, is that the article itself only criticizes two petroleum companies; more specifically, ExxonMobil (which basically uses direct copy from the article's own Criticism header, in which the neutrality is still disputed), and Chevron (which itself has a smaller criticism article that points back), again questioning their ethics. We need to keep it neutral, and this simply is not. --Dennisthe2 03:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and merge into Petroleum politics, ExxonMobil and Chevron. --Gabi S. 11:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- merge into articles for the twop companies, or even articles about criticism of the two companies if there is too much to organize. But there is no reason to have the two together here--especially when there are so many others to include.DGG 05:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, article is POV. Yuser31415 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I can see that an article of this title might be useful if it discussed the reasons and type of criticisms but this article which is a complaint log has nothing in it to merit being kept. --BozMo talk 13:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not WP style article, no context and low quality. Pavel Vozenilek 18:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (or Merge into petrolium industry article) per Wikipidian. The fact that it is incomplete, focusing on two of the largest companies only, is not a case for deletion. I've never understood why there are Criticism of... articles in WP. I've come across them myself. But the fact that there are such articles suggests, to me, that this one should be allowed to grow and improve over time, as it surely will. Or, as I say, merge. God knows, there is criticism of the oil industry! Tag it as incomplete and in need of improvement, but don't kill it.Shawn in Montreal 05:44, 28 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.
