Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Gmail

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. Mangojuice^talk 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Gmail

Non-encyclopedic. This article lacks reliable sources for the criticisms, and instead seems to be simply a list of user grievances. Criticism of the product is sufficiently covered at Gmail#Criticism. MichaelZimmer (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge hard one this, whilst it looks a little like WP:OR I also think there are some good and well ofunded comments in there. With a couple of sources (easy to find) it could be merged into Gmail#Criticism - there is new info in this article that could go across - and then deleted --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 11:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Some content could possibly be merged into Gmail#Criticism. This article is not referenced. The article does not sufficiently cover Google's defences/response. The list of absent features should not be considered "criticism" unless Gmail is actually heavily criticised for lacking certain features. In addition, if I recall correctly, POV forks are discouraged. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep valid article title, even if content is not great currently. comments above should be used to improve article, no need to delete it. as for pov forks, wikipedia has millions of them. Niz 13:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Per our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, which is non-negotiable, it should have zero. An argument that we should violate the NPOV policy will always fail. See also Wikipedia:Content forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles for why "Criticism of" articles are inherently non-neutral. Uncle G 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • in that case why are there so many "Criticism of..." articles? many have even survived AFD. so clearly it is negotiable. Niz 11:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Articles such as Criticism of Microsoft and Criticism of Wikipedia should stay because there is too much verifiable criticism for it to be sufficiently summarized in the main articles Microsoft and Wikipedia. This does not apply to Gmail, however. The criticism about lack of features does not seem to be criticism at all, and the Criticism of Gmail article is not referenced at all. The criticisms can be sufficiently covered in the main article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Because several people have copied a bad idea, using the very fallacious logic that you are using ("The existence of article X justifies the existence of article Y."). You'll notice that the majority of "Criticism of" articles sport NPOV tags, and have done so for much of their existence. This is because "Criticism of" articles are inherently non-neutral. No, the NPOV policy is not negotiable. It is a Foundation issue. Uncle G 13:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge referenced, sourced content, Dustbin the rest. -- nae'blis 15:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, OR and feels like a POV fork. I suppose sourced material might be merged back into Gmail if it's not there already. BryanG^(talk) 22:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge The mother article is short enough to incorporate it. Dev920 23:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Criticism is sufficiently covered in Gmail#Criticism, where it is treated with more NPOV (e.g. privacy activists' views and opponents' views are both given) --Iamunknown 01:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Gmail article (Antriver 21:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC))
• Delete. I don't really like any of the "criticism" articles. It should be possible to describe a subject in an encyclopedic way without turning to "criticism of ..." articles or even sections. We have excellent articles on many highly criticised subjects without listing criticisms of them. I can't find any article on Criticism of racism, for instance. Or Criticism of murder. Or Criticism of KKK. The Ku Klux Klan article has even made it to FA-status without even the word "criticism" in it, much less a section or a "criticism" spinnoff article. How can that be? I do believe KKK has had its critics up through the times. I bet they've even been more criticised than gmail. - Shanes 02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep and/or Merge - If there is documented criticism of Gmail, it probably should be kept here.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. Most wanted Gmail features is a good source for this, and it's notable. —Nightstallion (?) 11:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete "Criticism of" articles are highly prone to POV and confer no compensatory benefit to justify their existence. Piccadilly 22:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• merge this with the Gmail#Criticism makes the most sense Yuckfoo 17:15, 15 August 2006 (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.