Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Apple Inc.

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. Also, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV issues need to be addressed through the normal dispute resolution processes. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Apple Inc.

Criticism of Apple Inc. (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)

Has become unsustainable because a couple of non-NPOV editors took ownership Lars T. (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. While I appreciate your frustration regarding this content dispute, such situations aren't resolved by deleting entire articles. Instead, please follow the instructions in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The topic is immensely notable due to the enormous coverage of it in reliable sources. However, for reasons of neutrality, and since Praise of Apple Inc. is currently a red link, I suggest moving the article to Public image of Apple Inc., and expanding it accordingly. Emily Jensen (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Neutrality isn't ground for deletion per WP:POV. Criticism that is notable and well sourced but too large to fit in the Apple_Inc. article would seem to merit a fork. There is a very well written Criticism_of_Wal-Mart article and an entire catagory that includes critiques of large corporations.--Savonneux (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. There are 126 articles on Wikipedia that have “Criticism of ” in the title. (Ironically, Criticism of Wikipedia is #2 on the list. ;-)) In most cases it appears the articles merited their own page either because of the breadth or length of the parent article, and following this logic, the length of the Apple, Inc. article merits a fork as does the Criticism of Microsoft article, and many others like it. As the article in question is concerned with criticism, like the others of its brethren, perhaps editors that are uncomfortable with the criticism as documented might want to create another fork for Apple detailing the very many good things the company is known for, or include a new section in the parent article for such a purpose. Balance is helpful. - Sctechlaw (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: There is an ongoing discussion about broadening the article in question to encompass positive criticism. Participation is welcome.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge into Apple Inc. (or make major changes): Unless a Praise of Apple Inc. is created or this article is expanded to include positive criticisms this article is just encouraging non-neutral edits. At the moment it's just a list of criticisms that aren't written from neutral point of view, almost an attack page. I bet if this had been written as a praise article it would already have been speedily deleted under G11 as advertising. - EdoDodo ^talk 19:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  While your proposal has some merit, it need not lead to NPOV per-se. Did you take into account the possibility of False balance? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  I'm sure that just like there were plenty of sources that criticize Apple there would be plenty that praise it, and it wouldn't be difficult to write a praise article, or include positive criticisms in the current one. - EdoDodo ^talk 06:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: Per the above keeps. Joe Chill (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: All other technology companies' articles has criticism page and not Apple's. Look at Criticism of Microsoft and others. Deleting this might seem pro-Apple pov. Apple is getting commented and criticized multiple times now. Because their influence is increasing, criticism and complement will increase. This should be kept to balance the pro-Apple wikipedia article. Trueshow111 (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  This position has similar issues to EdoDodo's. I'd prefer the Apple inc to be neutral on its own merits. (as is required by WP:NPOV, incidentally) --Kim Bruning (talk)

• If the page can't be NPOV on its own two feet, we should merge with Apple inc. Else NPOVize and keep. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  I agree, if this page was rewritten show a NPOV then it should probably stay, but as it stands at the moment I don't think it should. - EdoDodo ^talk 06:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with Apple's article (the latter should be discussed at the Apple talk page of course). --Gloriamarie (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note. I notice the AfD stats at toolserver counted my username as both 'keep' and 'delete'. For the record, its 'keep'. -Sctechlaw (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Addendum: The page is pure Hatecruft. Biased editing and deletion of NPOV material continues. Lars T. (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  Could you please cite one or more examples of this? --Gyrobo (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  [[1]] Lars T. (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  The sentence appears to have been rearranged (and another ref added) to answer the {{who}}. No material has been deleted.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  For being the guy who undos any edits that contain what you declare weasel words, you sure as hell don't know what the "who" tag is for. To be expected. Lars T. (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  This discussion is about deletion, not neutrality. Please discuss your issues on Talk:Criticism of Apple Inc. and please refrain from personal attacks.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  If you don't want answers, why do you ask questions? But then you just want to run Wikipedia into the ground. Lars T. (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  I'm just trying to tactfully end this digression, let's not make personal attacks. Moving along, nothing to see here.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  Nothing but your hypocracy at least. Nothing personal. Lars T. (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Merge Into the Apple article. I agree with the earlier comment - if there is no article praising Apple, why is there an article criticizing it? Joal Beal (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. This page exists separately from the main Apple Inc. article because its content is expansive and substantive enough to merit a separate article. There isn't an article praising Apple because there just isn't enough topical information to warrant such an article. Neutrality should not be a factor in this decision, only breadth of content. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  I'm sure that just like a criticism article could be written so could a praise one (there would be plenty of sources there too). But then again that would be called advertising and been deleted, seems a bit unfair to me. - EdoDodo ^talk 06:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  The main apple article includes a rather exemplary section on it's environmental record there are also articles for Apple evangelist Genius Bar etc. Including everything about the company in one article would make it impossible to read. Corporate history is forked into separate articles, employees etc.--Savonneux (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. There are other criticism of company articles; what makes this one different? Apple cult loyalty form the nominator, perhaps? (This is not an accusation, just a musing.) I disagree with merging into Apple, as that will make it too long. Straight up keep. — Timneu22 · talk 16:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  Sure there are other Criticism articles - but they aren't "owned" by hateboys. Lars T. (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: After reviewing Criticism, Criticism sections and articles, WP:OWNERSHIP, Describing points of view, and WP:NPOV I reviewed how this dispute could be fairly characterized and came up with the following to recap my understanding of it. I've probably missed things, so please point them out.

• Does the article hold to the basic tenets of verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources, and is it duplicative of other articles?
• Does the article meet objective standards for separateness and the WP:SPLIT criteria (i.e., does it warrant its separate existence from the Apple Inc. article)?
• Does the article assert facts about opinions and describe the opinions themselves?
• Has the article's editing purposefully omitted or concealed significant citable information in support of alternative viewpoints?
• Does the article need a more impartial tone that would help a more neutral characterization of the catalogued disputes?
• Does the intent of striving for neutrality mean the article should be edited to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true?
• Being that AfD is not cleanup, is the article an improvable work in progress, and if it demonstrates non-NPOV, are these issues remediable without the draconian AfD?
• Regarding the impetus for the AfD nomination, has the nominator assumed good faith on the part of the other editors?
• Regarding the nominator's argument the article is WP:RUBBISH-deserving deletion because of (a) non-NPOV and (b) article ownership issues: is non-NPOV a reason for deletion or for further article improvement? Is article-ownership extant and if so, to what degree?
• Has the nominator consistently exhibited uncivil behavior and if so does it suggest the nomination was not made in good faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sctechlaw (talk • contribs) 06:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• As long as the "owners" of the article revert any additions they don't like, the article can not be improved. And who would know better than you, since you are one of them. Funny that you tried to hide it by not signing your comment yourself. Lars T. (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  I put a warning on your talk page and will report you if you continue your disruptive behavior.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  And here is the other owner - please do continue with the harassment. Lars T. (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - All statements article in the article are properly sourced, and have a relatively NPOV. If you want to delete this article, I guess that the articles for criticism of Google, Microsoft/Vista/XP, Wikipedia, Facebook and the like should be deleted as well. Criticism will always exist for a large multinational company; and simply, there is enough that criticism should be split off into its own article. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per FlyingPenguins. Oreo Priest ^talk 16:45, 5 May 2010 (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.