Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kritik


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Kritik

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is apparently a term used in U.S. college debating, which is a sport or something in the U.S., I guess? I am unconvinced that it is a notable concept. All references derive from http://debate.uvm.edu, which at an (eye-watering) glance seems to be a self-published website (WP:SPS). A Google search for "Kritik debate" does provide indications that there may be something to the topic, but even if we assume the topic is notable enough, the article would need rewriting from scratch: it reads as completely incomprehensible to me, as an essay packed with impenetrable jargon, such that any substance can't be distinguished from original research.  Sandstein  21:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * delete clearly fails WP:GNG. Gnews shows no significant coverage of this term. A few German media comes up but obviously not in the context of US College debating. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - It might pass WP:GNG, but it's certainly an awful lot of unsourced text here. It's an interesting subject. I came to it via this Radiolab episode. I will say that while some of the papers are hosted at the uvm site, that includes publications in Rostrum, a journal published by the National Forensic League. I'm also seeing some other sources that I'll retrieve if I decide to argue for keeping. As it stands, this is just way too much based on way too little, and I'm not convinced it couldn't just be included elsewhere (a critical theory- or debate-related article). Possible also to userfy if the article creator wants a chance to improve it to work within Wikipedia's sourcing policies. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:27, 19 August 2016 (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.