Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy (0th nomination)

This page seems completely pointless and hopelessly POV. Isn't this something for the wiktionary, at best? --Wclark 22:08, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)


 * I think there is room possibly for expansion perhaps into a list of controversies; and/or list of controversial issues. I think that would require a lot of work though. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 22:22, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That already exists at List of controversial issues. Should those be merged somehow, or is this page totally superfluous? --Wclark 22:36, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)


 * Keep. If it's POV that can probably be fixed.  Perhaps because of prolonged exposure to TV-journalese and the like, so many confused people think the word controversial means offensive that it's worth linking some pages to this article to clear up that confusion. Michael Hardy 23:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep for Clean Up. It's not the most clear article in the world, but it is encyclopedic. Geogre 00:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * As perpetrator here, I hold back from defending the entry. But if its history, structure and techniques can be discussed, if writers like Irenaeus are termed "controversialists," then it's as encyclopedic as rhetoric, ...IMHO. Wetman 17:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete So make it a redirect to rhetoric. This is no more a subject that the words "This" "is" "no" "and" "more". Also note the time that passed, and the article is still horrible. Samfreed 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)