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. T. Canens (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of The New York Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An indiscriminate ragbag of unrelated complaints under a title which frames the treatment to be implicitly hostile contrary to core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Criticism of the NYT is a worthwhile topic, but this does not seem to be the way to deal with it. Individual cases already have their own articles in many cases, or else criticism is mentioned in main article. No need to repeat material in a new article like this. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article may need major improvement, but 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. Drrll (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subtopics within the article are sourced, but the overarching topic of the article is not sourced; there is no source establishing "criticism of the New York Times" as a topic. The article cuts against fundamental policy which says that if sources don't exist for a topic we should not write an article on that topic. The subtopics in most instances have freestanding articles. Those freestanding articles can be accessed from the The New York Times article. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is notable if not without faults. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there do exist books like [1] whose actual topic is criticism of the NYT's reporting (at a higher level than individual incidents; the book in question alleges systemic distortion of foreign affairs reporting over a 5-decade period). Unfortunately, the article as it stands now is just a collection of individual incidents which Wikipedia tries to synthesise into a whole. cab (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A malformed collection of axe-grinding that serves no real informational purpose. SteveStrummer (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Incubate somewhere. I think a NPOV article could be made with substantial work. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Much work needed to bring to the level of Fox News Controversies, but gives a good, rudimentary, rundown of the NYT print first and check facts later policy. I also reviewed the regulations for the rational of this pages deletion nomination and did not see anything specific that would warrant it. Cheerio HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The core policy cited in the nomination states:"A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.". Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.