Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Without prejudice to the creation of categories.  MBisanz  talk 22:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

List of criticism and critique articles
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previous AFD kept due entirely to WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:HARMLESS arguments. I fail to see how this is a valid list, given that there is already at least one category navigating all these articles, and this does not serve any purpose the category does not. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * delete, the listed article have only a very loose connection. Say, Criticism of Islan is related to Criticism of Windows XP?. - Nabla (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As creator, and as an argument brought up in the previous AFD brought up - this is a very handy navigation page that can coexist with categories. I for one hate navigating through categories and find this a much easier way to see in one hit what articles share this common thread. In fact, being able to easily compare and contrast "Criticism of Isla[m and] Windows XP" seems like a major plus to me. How are these criticism/critique articles different across Wikipedia? How does this information help us in providing the best quality material for the encyclopedia? Maybe there are some weak links in the chain that haven't been categrorised yet, or that people have forgotten about. I can only find good in articles like this, which is why I have made many.--Coin945 (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it has any value as support material for editors - which I doubt, but accept the possibility - then it should be in Wikipedia: namespace, not in article namespace. - Nabla (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, although it's hard to make a policy-based argument because WP:LISTPURP does appear to allow lists like this – those that "serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia". I agree with the point made in the previous AfD that a wider discussion about the appropriateness of indexes would be more constructive than nominating individual lists for deletion. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will add, though, that since this particular article isn't so much a list of topics as a list of similar types of article, I can't see that many of the advantages of a list over a category really apply. For instance, the entries can't be annotated, the list can't contain any items that don't exist as articles, and no sourcing is necessary. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Is this all the criticism articles WP has? I would have thought there would be hundreds.  I would vote for delete since this mainly seems to be for insiders (WP editors), rather than for readers.  Having said that it is very interesting, and somewhat amusing, but that's only to us I'm afraid. BigJim707 (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Policy-wise it could also be said that it is based only on a primary source, WP itself. BigJim707 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. The grouping of articles- hence the basis for this article- is WP:SYNTHESIS. Does not make sense to try to catalog every WP article with criticisms of the subject, for example it would also need to include any articles with text about criticisms of a topic. This list would be so large that it's useless. Also, it would be rife for misuse by editors looking to advertise their "criticisms of..." article. 1292simon (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment In answer to BigJim707's initial question, yes. It is indeed a complete list. In other news, I think rather than saying delete with great haste, we should instead (or at least also) be discussing what can be learnt from such a list. Does this reveal naming anomalies within Wikipedia? Does it show what areas are over- or under-represented when it comes to these types of articles? Can the way criticism/critique articles on different topics are written provide a template for how others should be? I think the concepts behind these types of articles should be analysed as well as a simple vote for keep or delete, as I believe there is much goodness for Wikipedia that will be revealed throughout such a discussion.--Coin945 (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - not needed, and as people have said, essentially private to WP and also indiscriminate as thousands of articles have sections (or unnamed paragraphs) on criticism. If it's a personal selection of such articles, then it falls foul WP:NPOV. It must go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Index of loosely-connected articles. A category would be better. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't see that the arguments for keeping are any less valid this time than they were 5½ months ago. For the reasons stated by Northamerica1000 and postdlf last time, and by Coin945 this time, this list is navigationally and organizationally useful; at minimum, move it into WP space rather than delete. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If some editors find this list useful for housekeeping purposes, then I am happy for it to exist in WP space. 1292simon (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I fail to see why we should delete it just because there's a category, when WP:CLT says that isn't a reason for deletion: "For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa." --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and recreate in WP space. A list of semantically unconnected articles is simply not encyclopedic. A simple test is would this article be of interest to someone using this site as an encyclopedia?. In general I don't think so, whereas I can quite see the usefuleness for Wikipedians themselves. Mcewan (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a question I pose to thee If these articles just don't have any right to be on Wikipedia in their current form, (and as I still feel that categorisation in this fashion would extremely useful), what do we all think about categories based on these subarticle topics: Category:Criticism or critique articles, Category:Controversy articles, Category:Bibliography articles, Category:Comparison articles etc. ??--Coin945 (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I am not a fan of categories at all, as currently implemented, so am probably not qualified to comment. And it's a question for a different forum. But I would object to those categories on the same grounds as to the subject of this AfD - they are not grouping articles as to their content or theme, but as to their form or implementation. Category:French dramatists - OK; Category:Articles containing the word Racine - Not OK. Mcewan (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Warden hitting the nail on the head in the previous AfD. The arguments against were in my opinion insufficient, is there any reason why this list should not be held up to Wikipedia's notability requirements? WP:LISTN states "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables.", it makes no exemption for navigational/organizational lists. Nor, as suggested by postdlf, do WP:LISTPURP or WP:CLN provide an alternative guideline or override WP:LISTN in any way. (Interesting to note that all the examples of navigation lists that are discussed on WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN have long since been redirected to portals). Arguments over the usefulness/harmlessness of the article or whether it conforms to the manual of style are rendered moot if the concept behind the article doesn't even pass WP:GNG. The selection of criticism and critique articles hosted on Wikipedia has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Rubiscous (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I question the relevance and validity of such lists as they are, by their very nature,  subjective, based on the creator's criteria for selecting the content. Inevitably, other articles and sources will have been left out, making the list incomplete  at its inception and  bias  cannot be ruled out.--Zananiri (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no bias involved in this article whatsoever. The criteria for selection is pretty straightforward, and clearly outlined in the intro. Articles like list of lists of lists have survived despite needing to be updated from time to time. I see no reason why these sorts of articles cant exist too.--Coin945 (talk) 12:35, 14 January 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.