Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of family


 * 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. If anyone wants to merge any of it I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 22:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of family

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A huge original researchy mess forked from family. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Essentially, two accusations have been made against this article: (1) that it is a “fork” and (2) that it is “original researchy.” I'll show why both are false.
 * What a POV fork is, is a “content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.” Of course, asserting that this article is a fork of the Family article is like asserting that the Criticism of marriage article is a fork of the Marriage article. True, a portion of the content in this article was featured previously in the Family article—and, mind you, it did there just fine—but at that point the criticism section could not be expanded without violating WP:DUE, so it had to be split in compliance with WP:DETAIL.
 * Original research, in Wikipedic terminology, is basically when you make here on Wikipedia a statement that has never been made in any reliable published source. Contrastingly, this article cites sources for almost every statement made and, more than that, consists almost wholly of expressions written or uttered by third parties. So, you see, blaming this article for being “original researchy” is pretty much like blaming the Pope for being Protestant.  EIN   ( talk ) 10:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC) (the creator of the article)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article has myriad problems, but mainly original synthesis. Is there a book or a body of literature linking together these wildly disparate criticisms of family as one, coherent concept? It doesn't seem so, in which case, the synthesis is being done entirely by the Wikipedia editor, and that's not how we roll.  The Blue Canoe  17:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be confused about what improper synthesis actually is. Improper synthesis—or “original synthesis,” as you called it—a type of original research, is when you use two or more sourced statements as premises for some questionable conclusion without even providing any source for it (e.g., “4/20 is Adolf Hitler's date of birth.Sourced In cannabis culture 4/20 is symbolic of marijuana consumption.Sourced Therefore, potheads are Nazis.Critically unsourced”). One thing improper synthesis is not, is the use of multiple sourced statements independently of each other—as in this article—which has even been recommended as a good article-writing strategy in certain situations by Wikipedia guidelines. If this article is “original synthesis,” then so is the Holocaust denial article; let's propose it for deletion, too! Now, you said, “myriad problems”; anything else? Yours,   EIN   ( talk ) 03:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (the creator of this article)
 * Merge back into Family, and edit for WP:Undue Weight. Criticisms need context and balancing against other POVs... when presented in a main article that context and balance is provided. When split into a stand alone article that context and balance is lost. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's recall the Criticism of marriage article for a moment. How is this case different? Clearly, no imbalance there (or here?). Anyway, a merge of this article into the Family article would require a major abbreviation of the content—a course of action incongruous with the desire for Wikipedia to expand and develop.  EIN   ( talk ) 03:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (the creator of this article)
 * Keep EIN seems about right to me: The whole point of sub-articles to main articles is to allow expansion of article content beyond what is reasonable in the main article.  Putting all of these criticisms in one section (criticisms) is not the same as claiming they all cohere together.  Take a recent Featured Article, like Prosperity Theology].  There, disparate criticisms of prosperity theology are included in one section under a single heading.  No book or body of literature links together all these disparate criticisms of prosperity theology.  But the fact that they are criticisms makes them fine for linking under the heading "criticism". Similarly here. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. This is, as currently written, a quotefarm: a list of quotes that is borderline plagiarism. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Granted, this article may have resorted to an excess of citations, but when dealing with a topic as sensitive as this, it is oftentimes a necessary evil. Plagiarism—“the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own” (Oxford Dictionaries). Now tell me how this is plagiarism. I rest my case.  EIN   ( talk ) 03:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (the creator of this article)
 * Keep Each one of the pro-deletion arguments has been countered, while none of the counterarguments has. The article, thus, stands unchallenged.  EIN   ( talk ) 03:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (the creator of this article)
 * Keep well-sourced notable topic, I see no evidence of original research --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research by synthesis. For any given topic X, you can find quotes that are broadly critical of it, and paste these together into a WP:QUOTEFARM, but this does not make a coherent article. What would be needed are reliable sources covering this as a topic, making it notable. Also, content forks of the type "criticism of..." are to be avoided; any relevant criticism should be addressed in the main article.  Sandstein   19:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and comment. Deletion discussions are not a debate or argument. Votes are not "countered," and responding to someone else's comment does not somehow nullify it. All editors are equal, and the article absolutely stands challenged. I recommend a comprehensive reading of Closing discussions and Deletion policy. My point isn't that this article must be deleted - I think it should but I could be wrong, and I won't lose sleep if it isn't - but comments like "the deletion votes have been countered and so the article is unchallenged" aren't helpful. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:QUOTEFARM and per above. I originally came by to close this AfD, but realized I had too much to say. Also, how is an entirely separate article about "Criticism of X" any less a violation of WP:DUE than leaving it in the main article?  If your criticism section is growing too big, then it needs to be trimmed or made the main focus of the article, not split off into a separate article that only discusses one viewpoint, which is inherently non-NPOV.
 * Further, EIN, I agree with MezzoMezzo above that you need to learn more about how consensus is formed on Wikipedia during discussions. Rebutting someone's comment does not invalidate it, and as an admin who was considering the closure of this AfD, I can tell you that it doesn't help much when you split your arguments into several rebuttals. I suggest making one "keep" !vote and putting your argument there in detail. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2013 (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.