Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.

Talk:Primary Global Research scandal

From Anarchopedia
Revision as of 06:07, 18 January 2011 by Anarchangel (Talk | contribs) (...Pending charges, the peremptory AfD, and the original 'whitewash' diff of the article)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

This article concerns a legal case in which charges have been made but a verdict is pending. Forthcoming news information will provide more information to the benefit of this article - 17 Jan 2011

This article contains content from Wikipedia. It was deleted from Wikipedia

The AfD contained only the nominator's vote and one other to delete, which I countered. The proper response would have either been to close it no consensus, or better yet, to relist it. Wikipedia:User:Cirt closed it Delete.

The one Delete vote <bolded text as per original>:

Not surprising to find out that this consulting business is involved in an insider trading case. This is who spammers are and what they do. The current version qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising, patent nonsense, and given the fact that this firm apparently promoted itself to acquire access to confidential information which was then misused, likely vandalism as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And my counter:

Comment For the sake of argument, I show that your invalid, under PoV, rationale: 'The article should be deleted because they are villains', is countered by another: 'The article, and its "Insider Trading Investigation" section, should be retained to show their villainy'. Note that due to the subjective nature of PoV and N, more valid arguments which sound similar to these two can be constructed. Anarchangel (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not bother with a rationale to keep; it was a business scandal, and WP editors are all right-wing now. That's their interest, via their political stance (support of corporations) being attacked, and they defended it. Besides, what the nom and voter said about the rest of the article being a whitewash was true. Long before the scandal, company execs got someone to write an advertising piece and called it an article. Only after the scandal was the article nominated for deletion.

The original whitewash diff Anarchangel 06:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)