Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial controversy (2 nomination)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Artificial controversy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Original research around a particular collocation. At the first glance the article looks like well-referenced. But it turns out that 100% references are quotations of the usage of this phrase, and not a single about theoretical discourse of the concept. There are many standard phrases, such as false assumption or wrong decision, or theoretical possibility, but we don't write articles about them just because you may write a dictionary definition for them and find several thousands google hits. Xuz (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The article's topic lacks clarity. Is it talking about argument for argument's sake - staged debates at the Oxford Union and other formal events?  Is it talking about synthetic outrage as a rhetorical device?  Is it talking about news stories which exaggerate some incident to create sensational stories?  It lacks a proper foundation and so cannot stand. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs improvement (to say more about the subject, rather than just a list of examples), and I understand the WP:SYNTH concerns, but I think it's also clear that this is a real and widely-used concept which is deserving of an article. It should also perhaps be moved to Manufactured controversy, as that seems to be the more popular term. Robofish (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. I agree that the article needs to be improved, but I believe the topic is worthy of a better article.  There should be redirects from the synonyms listed in the article. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Subject maybe worthy, but article is trash, should be restarted all new. We may just as well delete the current one. -RobertMel (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is itself a manufactured artificial excuse for POV. If kept, it can of course be edited, to indicate that it is used in a purely dismissive way, without any regard for the facts of the matter one way or another. The first step will be removing all the examples, as they are all individual exercises of POINT.  Probably better to start over.    DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This expression, or pair of words, is certainly used but is really no more notable than a "major controversy" or a "limited controversy" an "old controvesy" or a "new controversy" etc. In a sense all controversies are artificial since they are created by us humans. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:24, 5 March 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.