Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia/18 October 2005


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was speedy keep. This has been to AFD twice before, and it doesn't seem that there's a new argument or any support at all to delete. If you'd like to merge this, try Wikipedia talk:Criticisms and Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

 * Criticism of Wikipedia was nominated for deletion on 2004-12-03. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".  For the prior discussion see Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia/2004-12-03.
 * Criticism of Wikipedia was nominated for deletion on 2005-02-25. The result of the discussion was "keep".  For the prior discussion see Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia/2005-02-25.

Uhhh! Inherently POV.


 * Delete as POV criticism. (unsigned comment from anon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.179.49 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-18 00:07:41 UTC
 * Extreme speedy keep. Bad faith nom; NPOV requires that criticisms be presented, in a neutral fashion. I wonder who this is a sock of? N (t/c) 00:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, just like the last two times this was AfD'd. (I think you're supposed to mention in the nomination that this is the third time, by the way...) - Haeleth 00:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Maybe someone should nominate for idrive.  Jkelly 01:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Real strong keep, you betcha. Inherently POV? What, nobody out there ever criticizes Wikipedia? Coulda fooled me... -- Captain Disdain 01:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep times infinity. --HappyCamper 01:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Stong keep. Why is this even AfD? The merge idea is foolish as well, as these are totally formatted differently. Voice of All  @ ''' 01:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Possibly merge with Criticisms. I think that it is important to do an NPOV assessment of our strengths and weaknesses. Given the strength of sentiment for keep, perhaps there should be a speedy keep.Capitalistroadster 01:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge this with Criticisms as has been proposed on the pages of both articles. Unless I am missing some finer point, each  of these articles are addressing the same set of issues.  Obviously criticism is going to be POV.  However, if Wikipedia is not ready to address the criticism of the larger community it will soon fall apart.&mdash;Gaff  talk  01:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep POV ? ??? I dont think so --JAranda &#124; watz sup 01:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ridiculously strong keep. For crying out loud, people, noting that opinions exist is not POV.  Stating opinions as though they were facts would be POV.  Learn the difference. Penelope D 01:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. We've been through this too many times.   [ +t, +c, +m,  +e  ] 01:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I'll get a speedy keep in before this is closed... --Anetode 02:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep --Mateusc 03:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all of the above Joaquin Murietta 03:46, 18 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.