Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

DELETE or make into DISAMBIGUATION This is all original work and the personal of the primary author (as explained by the primary author on the talk page see Talk:Criticism#"Sophomoric").

The article has never had its primary theme "sourced" since its inception as a stub. The few sources that have been added over the years do not support the primary theme in this article as they are the ideas of the author. This article appears as the top reference for "Criticism" on Google, which reflects poorly on Wikipedia. The author is not available (permanent ban) to help source the unsourced material. Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 11.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator seems to forget that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so whether the 'original author' is permabanned, died, or has experienced alien abduction... it's not their article, but the community's, and once they click 'Publish', it can be refactored in any manner. We don't care who wrote it, it can easily be improved, and the nom hasn't done anything outside a bizarre redirect to Critique, which is a completely different topic and discipline.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is a unsourced unconventional personal essay (66% written by one editor) that has not improved in 18 years. If that seems acceptable you, vote "keep". But to be clear, this is not the place to take cheap shots at an editor who, in good faith, brought this matter here for review. Please stay in bounds. Wiki-psyc (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment My comment was not intended as a 'cheap shot', but as a reminder that no article is WP:OWNED by anyone here. You're required to do WP:BEFORE during the nomination process, and all I'm seeing is you attacking an editor in bad faith who wasn't blocked for any of their contributions to this article, but other issues well outside of it, and even stated in a post in their own words they know they don't own an article written here. As in any page in the WP: space, you must conduct yourself properly and can be questioned for your previous behavior within the article you nominate. As I've said in other discussions; if you have the time to delete, you have the time to contribute. And finally, we don't have any control over how search engines index Wikipedia pages; they will often index the wrong version of an article, and we don't delete articles based on how a topic plays with Google SEO.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I would prefer to use this bandwidth to evaluate the article. The content does not appear credible to me. It is a large (49,696 bytes), 18 year old article with no reliable sources, no proof, no tracing of the content to determine that any of it is valid. That is the crux of it. It is a secondary issue that the primary contributor said that is was his original work. But if that is the basis of 66% of the article it further supports questioning the the validity of the content. All this seems reasonable. I hope something constructive comes out of this discussion for the future of this article. I question whether "stay the course" is the best decision given that state of the article and its history, but I am open to hear what others would suggest. I looked into reworking the article and I just don't see much that can be done with it (my opinion). Wiki-psyc (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, as this article can be fixed by normal editing, per WP:BEFORE. SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * True, the article could be fixed, but it would need to be scrubbed down to a stub. Almost none of it is salvageable and that hasn't changed much in 18 years. It has been tagged for over a decade and hasn't been fixed. Is there a reason? Is it possibly because this is a overly broad and diverse topic that is better dealt with in the over 100 articles on criticism already on Wikipedia. Would it be better to make this an organized disambiguation to direct readers to the more focused work? Certainly, it at at some point someone wanted to start over then could convert the disambiguation page. Just some thoughts to keep everyone open minded. Your point is valid. Wiki-psyc (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - it is a fallacy that merely because an article has quality issues (which this absolutely does) that it needs to be deleted. I believe the article can be improved with editing and see no valid reason for deletion. This will be put on my list of articles to improve also. Such-change47 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment You make a valid point - quality should not be the only issue. How we got here is when I concluded that the encyclopedic elements of Criticism and Critique were the same and pointed one to the other. In our article on Critique it says that it is hard to make a distinction between Criticism and Critique. And if you read both, they essentially cover that same topic area. In hindsight, it probably would have made more sense to point Critique to Criticism but I was biased by the poor article quality of the latter. If we look at something like the scholarly articles from The Continuum Encyclopedia of Modern Criticism and Theory, it would make sense that the umbrella article be named Criticism (and noted as "also known as Critique"). That is just a suggestion if you do take this on as an overhaul. Thanks for your helpful comments. Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Please discuss in more detail: Are this article's WP:OR issues so severe that WP:TNT is warranted? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT, WP:IAR, and WP:5P. This is an irretrievable mess of WP:OR. Of course the topic is notable, and of course sources can be found, but this grab bag of dubious statements and personal opinion should be cleared away so someone can write an encyclopedia article about the topic. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not nominating it for WP:GA status anytime soon, but surely this article isn't so bad as to be a candidate for WP:TNT. I don't think anyone is disputing the notability or article worthiness of the topic.  The normal editing process should be fine for this article. Fieari (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep and fix, even if that means reducing to a stub. There ought to be some kind of content at this title, and I don't think the proposal to turn it into a disambiguation page is viable; our guidelines on broad-concept articles specifically recommend against this. So yes, WP:TNT, but not by actual deletion, just by removing the problematic content. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve the article. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2022 (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.