Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of POV forks


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was that it's my point of view that consensus is to delete this list. —Doug Bell talk 23:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

List of POV forks
Goes directly against the definition of what a POV fork is. A POV fork is keeping a page like this in mainspace because the article space article was deleted due to lack of support for the views expressed. There is no specific evidence of any of the "allegations", and if there was they can be dealt with on the individual pages. The pages starting with "Criticisms of.." are from what I can tell reasonable articles which "forked" simply due to space concerns, and in doing so the editors in question knew that they had to be careful with the scope of the page to keep a neutral article. Ans e ll 04:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Essay/list does not justify why each individual entry is a POV fork, or allow for counter-views, just some strawman generalizations that don't hold up on specifics. -- Stbalbach 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if they are POV forks it would be against this guideline to call them such: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism." from POV fork (my emphasis). -- AdrianTM 05:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete we already have Category:Criticisms, which is a far more detailed list. A "Criticisms of" page is not a POV fork - it is merely an section that has been split from the main article to keep it from being too long. Koweja 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If I were to vote keep, I would motion to rename this page to "Wikipedia:List of articles Wikipedians have termed POV forks" or similar, and provide sourcing for all of the POV forking concerns. After all, there may have been occasions where there had been a content dispute, and someone created another article for their own point of view, but the article has been improved since. More likely is that a neutral "criticism of" section was split off due to WP:SIZE. To quote from the talk page, not all "criticisms of..." articles are POV forks. But some are. I'm suggesting delete only because I think that a significantly insignificant (*heh*) number of these actually started out as POV forks (looking over the earliest revision of many of them). Grace notes T  &#167; 04:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The proper way to deal with a POV fork does not include listing it on a page so that people can come and "deal" with it. The proper way is a discussion, to determine if there's actually a consensus that it is a POV fork. -Amarkov moo! 04:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the purpose of this page is to have people deal with POV forks, but rather to provide a list or pages previously considered POV forks. Actually, I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of this page is! Grace notes T  &#167; 05:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete there is no evidence to back up the assertion that these articles are POV forks, and as has been mentioned above we have a category to deal with criticism articles. Hut 8.5 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Terence Ong 恭喜发财 12:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Any legitimate purpose which this page could posess already exists in a better form elsewhere. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:49, 28 February 2007 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.