Criticism of The New York Times – Endorse, but.... There is pretty clear consensus of the participants here to endorse the original (4 year old) AfD close. On the other hand, 4 years is a long time. World events evolve, as do our policies and community opinions. The title is not protected so there's nothing to prevent anybody from writing a new article at the same title, per WP:RECREATE. In turn there's nothing to prevent somebody else from bringing that new article to AfD if it doesn't address the concerns of the original AfD. – -- RoySmith(talk)15:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Endorse. The nominator ought to have noted that this has been to deletion review before: see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 4. And, he should have pinged the closing admin (Timotheus_Canens), which he was admonished for not doing the last time around. The closing admin's rationale, posted at the last DRV, was as follows:
Briefly, the point that there is a NPOV violation was not contested anywhere in the discussion, and there appear to be a rough consensus that the content should not remain in mainspace (considering the deletes and the incubate !votes). I also read CaliforniaAliBaba's comment as against retaining the present content. Arguments such as "it needs to be available, as the NYT is certainly one of the most influential news organizations in the US. A less influential news organization, Fox News Channel, has Fox News Channel controversies", is basically WP:WAX and are accorded less weight; "Article is notable if not without faults" is WP:JNN but more importantly beside the point, since notability is not the reason for the nomination; and of course the bare "keep" is not accorded any weight since AfD is not a vote.
Best to endorse the close of 4 years ago as the title was problematic and we need not rehash the AFD's strength or weaknesses here. However, as a major metropolitan newspaper which has been the subject of numerous controversies over a many-years period (they ain't perfect, after all) and, as the coverage of those NYT-specific controversies meets our inclusion criteria, a recreation of the content of this article should be allowed and be neutrally covered within these pages. A separate article? A sub-section at The New York Times? Just where folks... just where? Schmidt, Michael Q.07:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete for rewriting It's 4 years later, and there is more to be said. I cannot say I agree with the close; I see it as no-consensus; some of the arguments for deletion make no sense to me, such as that since we had articles of notable instances, a general article is inappropriate. (An argument the other way round, that a general article is sufficient, is more usual, and ofter successful). DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The appeal seems to be primarily other stuff exists which is weak because it seems likely that those other pages should be deleted too. WP:NPOV is still core policy and this requires that we write upon topics in a balanced, impartial way. One-sided attacks obviously violate this policy and so should be deleted. Note that the main article already contains two substantial sections of a similar sort - Coverage issues and Ethics incidents. Material which is too petty to get in there should not be indulged elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia, not a complaints department. Warden (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with User:Colonel Warden here. Anything that is too trivial for inclusion in the main article is also too trivial for inclusion in Wikipedia altogether. The closing admin has recognised this and closed the discussion appropriately. Lankiveil(speak to me)04:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
