Talk:Criticism of Nortel

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 October 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Nortel.

Original research

As discussed on the Nortel talk page, without notable, reliable sources regarding the EDC loans as bailouts or controversial, or other criticism, it is original research to categorize them as such.

I removed two sections for this exact reason, before seeing it here on talk. As you say, unless a WP:RS makes a criticism, we can't include simple facts on a criticism page; it's WP:OR for us to declare it a criticism. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Roth's filing of a claim for indemnification also lacks any sources that describe it as controversial. Is this a criticism of Nortel, or of John Roth? If the former, then perhaps there should be a section on the accounting troubles which underlie the claims filed by Roth, Mike Zafirovski, Bill Owens, Harry Pearce, John Cleghorn and Manfred Bischoff, and the claims can be included with this section. If the latter, then it doesn't really fit within this article. Isaac Lin (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose removing the note on John Roth's claim, as it is not a criticism of Nortel. I have placed this information in Roth's article. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information not within scope of article

Again, the information on Roth is not a criticism of Nortel, and does not fit in this article. Ample opportunity for further comment has been given and so a new consensus is now in place. If you want to alter the article, please explain how you may think this information fits. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without any further explanations, there cannot be a consensus reached on the information on Roth being relevant to this article. The information is already found within other articles where it better suits the topics. Unless there is further discussion, I propose removing the section. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of discussion to reach a consensus, I will proceed with the proposal. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to work towards consensus

Please do not engage in restoring content that has been challenged and removed, with many months given for comment. Continuing to edit without engaging in consensus building is a sign of disruptive editing. Perhaps you would like to follow the mediation process to resolve this dispute? Isaac Lin (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, I am not a regular contributor at Wikipedia. It seems to me that you are not trying to reach consensus, but rather trying to wear me down. As far as discussion, as I already mentioned in the comments, this discussion started months ago at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nortel#Government_support Ottawahitech (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you have not yet addressed the issues raised above. Can you explain why you believe the information on John Roth is appropriate for this article, when it is an action taken by him as an individual against Nortel? Regarding information on government support, it is original research to assume that all such instances reflect a criticism of Nortel. Unless you can find citations on this information, it is not suitable for inclusion in this article. Note all of this information remains within the Nortel article. Please recall there is no urgency to have the article in the state you desire immediately; Wikipedia is here for the long haul and so it is worth taking the time to find appropriate references, or to expand upon sections to make it clear how they relate to the article's topic. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVFORK

This article appears to be a violation of our policy and in drastic need of cleanup. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well sourced

Every claim in here seems to be properly sourced. Did I miss something? What's the problem? I'm going to revert the blank out and the speedy delete tag.

The description for that G10 speedy delete tag states:

Pages that disparage or threaten their subject. or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. These "attack pages" may include slander, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met.

My objections to the application of this tag to this article:

I don't see how the purpose of this page is to disparage or threaten Nortel, much less that that is the only purpose.
I see no evidence of "slander, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person" in this article.

Removing tag and reverting back to unblanked version.

--Born2cycle (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something has a source does not mean that the way the sourced material has been selected and presented is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're changing the subject. This article was tagged for a speedy delete, yet did not even begin to meet the criteria. That was the point of this section, which I explained in detail above.

Anyway, POV forks are expressly allowed at WP:CFORK. There is nothing "unencyclopedic" about this article specifically that isn't also true about any of the other countless Criticism articles in Wikipedia. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia should have no Criticism articles? If not, then what exactly is your policy-based objection that is specific to this article? Without citing policies or guidelines as a basis for your objection, this is appearing to be a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it.

The article can and should be improved. That's no reason to delete it. How are our readers being harmed by keeping it? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cherrypicked statements that all are selected and arranged for the sole purpose of attacking a person or organization do clearly fall within the "attack page" speedy deletion criteria. That you dont think this particular article meets that criteria, fine. But I do. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone sabotaging Nortel criticism page?

I have not been able to contribute here due to other activities, but I notice that I am now unable to revert a change made by "banana" which states (incorrectly) "source says it is not a bailout". I would like to restore the heading of the section "1.2 Government bailouts" which has been removed by this change . Thanks. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of working towards consensus, can you please not revert this change at this time? The source did not characterize the loan as a bailout, and it is misleading to put this information under a heading labelled "bailout". Also, as discussed above, no source has been provided yet to illustrate the relevance of the loans to the subject of this article. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can articles be licensed to Wikipedia

I just added a new section to the Nortel criticism page and used as a reference an article that now redirects to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/subscribe.jsp?art=745833 saying "The article you are looking for is available to GlobePlus members or can be licensed". Since it contains pertinent information I wonder if there is a way to license it to Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different things going on in your post. When making a citation to verify a statement in a Wikipedia article, it is preferred that the citations used are freely available on line, but that is not a requirement. Whether or not someone personally buys a licence / access fee to be able to view a newspapers archives is not relevant.

When we fully use copyright material, such as a corporate logo, then the image must be licenced for use on Wikipedia, but that doesnt apply here. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]