Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HBO controversies

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. ✗plicit 12:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HBO controversies

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

per the reasons it was declined and rejected in the Articles for Creation process It's a redundant fork of the main articles, providing no summary comparative content. Plus, it's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT as a lot of high-profile media have controversies. Indagate (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Indagate (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think WP:CFORK is misapplied here. This article doesn't duplicate the scope of any another article (except for maybe HBO, but clearly this is far too long to be merged there). Copying and condensing material from a set of other articles on a related topic isn't content forking, it's summary style and is not only allowed but encouraged. Granted, this article could use some more work on the 'condensing' part, but the material from other articles is all properly attributed on the talk page and integrating it better is a just matter of clean up.

As for WP:UNDUEWEIGHT yes, we generally discourage dedicated criticism sections/articles, but there are exceptions for organizations, businesses, philosophies, religions, or political outlooks, provided the sources justify it. I'm !voting weak keep because I'm not sure this meets that criterion – but it's quite plausible that it does. Whole books in media studies have been written about HBO, and I'd be very surprised if they didn't include large sections on controversies and criticism. – Joe (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I rejected the original draft because it isn't clear that the overarching topic deserves a standalone list. There's a lot about the reception of individual TV series or films, and that either is or can be included on their pages. Would this page include all negative reactions to HBO content? It's debatable whether many of these are bonafide "controversies" vs normal media criticism. There's also two paragraphs of criticism about HBO MAX, which could be added to the existing reception on the MAX page. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK if consensus decides differently but I wanted to explain why I feel this page doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - It was rejected at AfC so no further work should have been performed. Further, none was, but then was pushed through by another reviewer. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG: That's not how AfC (which is completely optional) works, or a speedy deletion criterion. I'd expect an admin to know that... – Joe (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an AfC rejection is the opinion of a single editor (usually, but in this case two) it goes against WP:consensus to take this as an absolute. Yes most rejects are hopefully correct, but reviewers do make mistakes. KylieTastic (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to the articles each individual section belongs in. This isn't about "HBO controversies", it's about controversies of each individual show, which happen to be HBO shows. Each individual piece may well be undue, too long, etc for each article, but that's something that the editors of each individual article can then decide, as a normal content issue and not an AfD. They may all get removed from those articles too, and that's fine I think this is a kind content fork, though I do see Joe's point - I think he's correct that the whole thing isn't a single content fork, but what we have here is several content forks, which have then somewhat synthily been smashed together into this article. Basically, I think AfD is the wrong place to determine whether each section should exist or not, but the article itself, as "HBO controversies", certainly should not. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete: dug through more thoroughly and there really is nothing to merge. Anything that looks relevant is already on the individual articles. -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too wide of a scope. Also, what constitutes a "controversy" can be considered subjective. I would argue that some of the things included are more just standard criticism rather than actual controversies. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "HBO controversies" isn't a coherent topic in its own right. This is in addition to the general problems with creating an article that exclusively covers negative aspects of a topic. Maybe some of this information can be merged into the articles of the respective shows, but at a glance, most of them seems undue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am just starting a user draft on Criticism of Warner Bros. Discovery, maybe some of the content can be implemented there. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Oinkers42) I don't think that's the right lesson to take away here. If "HBO controversies" shouldn't exist, then there's a reasonable chance that "Criticism of Warner Bros. Discovery" fails for the same reasons. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Criticism of Warner Bros. Discovery is created, then this article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. CastJared (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Criticism of Warner Bros. Discovery, as a suggestion to merge with partial content attached, without forking it. CastJared (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. If HBO as a company had controversies notably unrelated to their shows (such as strikes, white collar crimes in their executives, etc.) to the point of at least six notable events, then this article would be a good keep. Conyo14 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not meet WP:NLIST in my opinion. Most of the controversies are already mentioned on the pages of the relevant television series. Technically there is way more that could be written about the reception of HBO productions, but that doesn't mean there should be a standalone page for all of it. Anything that wouldn't be significant enough to warrant inclusion on the series' page is not significant enough for inclusion on a standalone page about HBO controversies. If this page dealt with criticisms of HBO as a company that would be different, but this is all reactions to TV shows with existing pages. (The only exception is the MAX streaming service, which also already has a page with a reception section). BuySomeApples (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, do not merge. This article is conceptually wrong and shows no understanding of how the television industry works. There is exactly one relevant section here, that of HBO Max going streaming-first, and that's not really a "controversy" just a business decision that some other players did not like. (But.... tough on them. That's no more a controversy than the local bar changing the cover charge.) All of those TV shows which had issues were not micromanaged by some HBO executive in New York, but rather, HBO was hiring/contracting out development of a TV show to a production team. These "creatives" can and do work for multiple studios and are fairly independent. So it's ridiculous to call these issues "HBO controversies" in the same way that you can't put everything bad in one sub-company of Berkshire Hathaway a "Berkshire Hathaway controversy"; it's too distant. An actual article would need to focus on HBO itself, not the TV shows on air. SnowFire (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:UNDUE POV fork, plain and simple. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs (she/her) 23:33, 21 June 2023 (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.