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. Also, please don't move articles while the AFD is open. Neil ム 10:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy among United States mobile phone companies[edit]

Controversy among United States mobile phone companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a POV fork from various articles about U.S. mobile phone service providers. Indeed, the summary from its first edit is "separated sections from main articles due to disputed neutrality". Like all "controversy" and "criticism" articles, it's little more than a dumping ground for complaints, many of which constitute unverifiable original research. What encyclopedic purpose does it serve, really? szyslak 19:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NOR, and per nom. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nom asks: "What encyclopedic purpose does it serve, really?" None, as far as I can tell. In fact, it serves a very unencyclopedic purpose: as nom also pointed out, the article was created "due to disputed neutrality" (primarily on the Verizon and AT&T articles, I believe). I originally had hoped the "Controversy among..." article might be a place for an improvement of the content, but it hasn't become that, I'm afraid. As Malinaccier pointed out, it's just become a breeding ground for more original research and random complaints of these wireless carriers. In that case, perhaps delete and redirect to BBB. I kid.   justen   20:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not a "breeding ground for...random complaints." The criticisms are verified and not at all "random." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.188.18 (talk • contribs)
• Question Is there any hope for an article discussing cellular phone companies history in the United States (or the world)? The current History of mobile phones focuses more on the phones, and less on the companies. FrozenPurpleCube 21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable history in this, the Golden Age of Cellular. Mandsford 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has nothing to do with history. If these incidents are historically notable, we'll know in a few years or so. But as it stands now, Wikipedia is not the Better Business Bureau. szyslak 01:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to the extent the information can be sourced, it belongs in the original articles. This was a misguided attempt to solve problems with POV and V. DGG (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SYNTH - Bunch of events put under a big umbrella Corpx 04:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree that this article contains unverified research. It could use a little brushing up, but most of the assertions contain active citations. Perhaps the individual concerns should be merged into "controversy" sections for each cell phone company, but the information is valid, helpful to consumers, and a worthy entry on Wikipedia, to the extent that cell phone providers do not want to see it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.188.18 (talk • contribs)
• Keep (for now) There is no doubt at least some relevant and notable information in this article that if deleted may be lost. I think it should be kept for now, POV and non-notable statements removed, and then if the remaining information warrents its own article then keep it, or if it doesn't than merge sections with their respective phone companies and delete this page at that time. I am aware that Wikipedia is not the BBB and there may be some original research here. While this may indeed be a misguided attempt to solve various problems, I believe it was created in good faith and has good points. Give it some time for other editors to search through the information, and then delete/merge it accordingly. We shouldn't rush this to deletion at this time. heresthecasey | talk 04:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this looks like a POV fork[1], which is explicitly disallowed by policy. You should include this in the main article, and source the claims appropriately. Melsaran 11:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as List of United States mobile phone company controversies I've moved the article to reflect that this really an annotated list, rather than a comprehensive treatise on the subject. In this context it is encyclopedic, because it brings together related topics. This is not WP:SYNTH, as some have commented, because that requites that the article actually synthesize a position, not simply bring facts into juxtaposition. As a list, it can be expanded to cover all related controversies, and link to articles that provide further information, which should address any perscieved POV issues. If any of the individual items on the list are not WP:V they can be addressed by normal editing, but many are already cited, and most probably can be. I also don't see how this is a WP:POVFORK unless someone seriously disputes these things, and they are covered differently in another article. Dhaluza 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom clearly fails WP:NOR Harlowraman 02:58, 20 August 2007 (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.