Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Joko Widodo


 * 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 merge to Joko Widodo. There's reasonable agreement here that we can't just leave it in it's current state. Even among the people arguing to keep, there's consensus that this needs a substantial amount of cleanup; whether that's WP:TNT or simply removal of poorly-sourced material, and WP:POV / WP:BLP violations is unclear.

One of the oddities of this discussion is the frequent suggestion that this be merged to the currently non-existant Presidency of Joko Widodo. It's not clear to me what that's supposed to mean. How is that different from a rename? I do observe that creating a new article from scratch and merging would (in theory) impose the discipline that everything that's merged be examined.

The other oft-mentioned potential merge target is Joko Widodo. That's not the majority viewpoint, but it does have the advantage of most directly addressing the complaint that this is a WP:POVFORK of that article.

A minority are arguing for straight-up deletion, and many of those agree that a merge would be a reasonable alternative.

Between all these possibilities, I don't see any perfect solution. I'm going with the merge back into the parent article. I strongly urge whoever does the merge to only take the best material, and rigorously enforce policies such as WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:POV. Once that merge is completed, editors can continue to discuss at Talk:Joko Widodo if it's worth splitting this back out into a separate article, and if so, what title would be most compliant with WP:POVNAMING. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Joko Widodo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The entire article is written entirely off NPOV and contains several straight up conspiracy theories (just see the navbox and the section titles should already give enough of an impression), and it is frankly too long for a proper improvement without straight up nuking the article. A better way would be a deletion to prevent a massive BLP violation and then remake from scratch. An unrelated sidenote: it is also horribly written, in terms of grammar and structure. Juxlos (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * As a note, original creator of the article,, have not ever accepted NPOV requests and his edit history has been entirely one of either dumping NPOV-violating edits, reverting reversions, and huge talk page rants about the reversions. In my opinion, he is not editing in good faith. Juxlos (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not all that relevant to the notability of the article, which is what we're deciding here. You should report him to WP:ANB if he is ignoring warnings. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Criticism of a head of state is a perfectly valid reason for an article and highly notable, and not a BLP violation if it's inline with valid sources. Plenty of sources in English media. We have similar articles on other world leaders. Obviously the article needs to be free from conspiracy theories and only based on criticism from reliable sources, including respected human rights groups, and so the neutrality of the article should be addressed. The article is extremely detailed and extensive, so I don't see the point of WP:TNT. Just remove any unsubstantiated content. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Criticism of Donald Trump is a redirect and this AfD isn't a WP:N AfD, this isa BLP WP:TNT AfD. Article in current stage is a giant BLP violation. Juxlos (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I addressed your proposal of TNT and why I felt it was unnecessary. Yes, and, likewise Criticism of George Bush is a redirect to Public image of George W. Bush, which is just criticism of George W. Bush. Meanwhile, Criticism of Vladimir Putin's government redirects to Russia under Vladimir Putin which is 90 percent criticism of Vladimir Putin. I don't see how any of these are giant BLP violation if these criticisms are substantiated. Just remove anything unsubstantiated. What is the problem with that? It seems you have a real problem with the creator and are taking it out on the article. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I am using the editor's history to substantiate the NPOV - the contributions section clearly does not imply a neutral editor in the first place and this article is a clear case of a POVFORK. And as I mentioned, the article is so big that a slow removal will be a huge effort that's better invested in redoing the entire thing. Juxlos (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:POVFORK specifically states that "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork" and the edit is properly also abudantly sourced. Qzxv5 (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:TNT delete as how it is constructed now (both in grammar and style). An entire article dedicated to listing every single point of negativity is against WP:NPOV, in particular as described in WP:CRITS. This kind of stuff is more appropriately and neutrally addressed in an article titled Presidency of Joko Widodo. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge+redirect to Joko Widodo, but sifted for notability. Only high-impact debates should be included, and not every troll-generated consipracy (much of the current article is composed the latter stuff). Agree with, as it stands, it's a blown-up POV-fork of a currently non-existent Presidency of Joko Widodo. –Austronesier (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Create Presidency of Joko Widodo article, and Merge only the WP:RS criticism to the respective section.--Darwinek (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge+redirect to Joko Widodo or just flat-out delete; the current article is a shameful violation of NPOV and reliable sourcing. Doesn't seem like we're taking policy on BLP seriously here. And I know some will call this off topic, but it is horribly written. Glendoremus (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * About the wordy problem, Remind that Wikipedia is never perfect, but anyone can contribute to make it so (I am not a native, anyway...)

Let me expound my rationale here, I choose to create the criticism page to collect various criticism made in public since I have vast references and sources from media covering the controvesial policies and things related to him and in Indonesian Wikipedia, there is a section (Joko_Widodo#Kontroversi) about it (yet none of them on the English Wikipedia).
 * Keep, for the rule sake, NPOV problem not relevant for article deletion.

I think "this person" could be very controversial in the country and deserve to be criticized as it happened when hundreds of protesters oppose his re-election and hundreds thousands of college and high school students march on the roads across the nation when resist his decision on KPK Law, also there are more than 600 ballout officials dead during the 2019 election still in obscured, moreover, almost a dozen of souls are already giving up their souls while protesting him during the May 2019 post-election result anouncement riot and Criminal Code bill demonstration in Sulawesi, yet most of popular Western mainstream media say few (or nothing) about this crisis...(I mean, do the world think that nothing seriously horrible has been happening in Indonesia? or just unaware of it...)

Futhermore, consider when reading the "criticism" pages Criticism of Akira Kurosawa, Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Criticism of Mother Teresa or Criticism of Facebook, Criticism of Islam and even Criticism of Muhammad and Criticism of Jesus which are overwhelmingly "dominated by negative views" about each of them, yet the articles are preserved for years (or even decade!). If these pages are going to be deleted also, I wouldn't object that Criticism of Joko Widodo will be deleted. Fairness is crucially needed here...

Because AfD policy based on policy-based arguments, these passages should be considered: Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates WP:V), "original research" (violates WP:NOR), and "non-notable" Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Do a NPOV problem is an reasonable excuse to delete an article, so what's "NPOV noticeboard" for? or Should I give a long lecture of rules below? ..Accusations of vanity and other motives should be avoided and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not "a very strong reason" for deletion either. WP:AFD

POV problems do not require deletion; Template:Before_Afd:Before listing an article for deletion...For "problems that do not require deletion", including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, uncontested redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias...Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content. Qzxv5 (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this comment alone suffices to demonstrate the bias of the author. Juxlos (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While I agree with, I don't think we shouldn't leave anything at the implicit level. So let's adress each point: 1. WP is not the place for WP:righting great wrongs. Your obvious personal dissatisfaction with current events in Indonesia is a bad start for creating objectivity. 2. WP:other stuff may exist, but that's not relevant for the current AfD. The notability of the topic itself must justify a standalone article. 3. Violation of NPOV is not "a very strong reason" for deletion, but on a case-by-case basis still can be. 4. Finally, do not conflate documentation of bias with promotion of bias. The goal of documentation of bias, critcism etc. here in WP is to provide full coverage about notable topics based on reliable sources: it's not to provide an unfiltered forum for any form of bias. –Austronesier (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge all reliably sourced content to Presidency of Joko Widodo where this article should redirect. b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 23:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. AFD is not clean-up and NPOV problems is not a reason for deletion. On a side note, WP:NPOV recommends titling articles without the word criticism and instead using the words perception or reception in order to keep a more neutral point of view within an article. For those with NPOV concerns, I recommend retitling the article Perception of Joko Widodo and bringing in some other points of view into the article to balance it out. That's a discussion for the article's talk page though and not at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article requires more citations and the tone is not neutral. I am leaning towards a merge to Presidency of Joko Widodo. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The9Man  &#124; (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge with Joko Widodo, or else Delete as a WP:POVFORK. Also per WP:CRIT. Jimbo Wales is quoted on that page with this comment. The page author's argument that there is no consensus as to whether a criticism article is always a POVFORK is not relevant in this case. This case clearly is a POVFORK as it is not a balanced article. Does not adhere to WP:NPOV. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Additional comment The article in its current form does not only list third-party criticism as documented in reliable sources, but also uses combined data from reliable sources to express criticism, in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. The article appears superficially well-sourced, but sources are to a great deal misused to prop up the personal opinion expressed by the page creator by means of this article. I have started to deconstruct the article by removing every material that does not represent third-party criticism documented in reliable sources. –Austronesier (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.