Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Human Rights Watch

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 no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Human Rights Watch

Criticism of Human Rights Watch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

"Criticism of" article. There seems to be more consensus these days that "Criticism of" articles are a bad idea from an NPOV standpoint. —Ashley Y 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Human Rights Watch. —Ashley Y 06:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment can you provide a reference to your claim that consensus stands that 'Criticism of' articles are a bad idea? --Ouro (blah blah) 08:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as utterly unnecessary POV fork. -Wooty Woot? contribs`
• Keep, merging would cause a gratuitous undue weight to criticism of the organisation. - Francis Tyers · 09:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment not to say that I don't think 'Criticism of X' articles are in general a bad idea. Just with this one it would be impossible to merge. - Francis Tyers · 09:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Surely the undue weight is worse with a separate article? —Ashley Y 07:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think so. The "Israeli criticism of HRW" is about the same length as the current article. If the whole criticism article could be cut down to say 4 paragraphs, as I tried to do here, then maybe we could merge it back in. But not as it currently stands. Of course the criticism article is larger now and so couldn't focus solely on Israel. - Francis Tyers · 09:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Ashley: please keep in mind that occasionaly, criticism of... is an important part of an issue. Criticism of HRW cannot be concluded from the given facts (unlike, say, an unjust war or some controversial governmental policy which is bound to go both ways), but actually adds to the description of HRW — as an NGO, they step on many feet, and cause reactions which influence their work — one way or another. ★čabrilo★ 00:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Perhaps Criticism of... articles are not always good, but in this particular case, criticism that HRW faces is a big part of their daily functioning and, if I may say, identity. NGOs are always under scrutiny from one place or the other and we would miss a big part of the large picture if we didn't get into describing the systematic criticism. ★čabrilo★ 10:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Human Rights Watch. This seems to be a fork magnet DanielT5 15:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it's been split from Human Rights Watch, which is different than POV forking. Where was this consensus developed? Koweja 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You can see Talk:Human Rights Watch and Talk:Criticism of Human Rights Watch. - Francis Tyers · 09:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the question was about the nom. Ashley Y seems to be generously conflating a number of recent nominations into a consensus to delete, but the ones I know of were kept, e.g. Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of Mormonism, a couple others. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge as per comments above. Appears to be a POV fork. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 22:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'd agree with delete if all the "Criticism of" articles were deleted. bogdan 09:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. This is a proper subarticle, not a POV fork (although all "Criticism" articles have tricky POV tendencies by nature). -- Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this amount of content would sufficiently overwhelm the original Human Rights Watch article, better to keep as subarticle unless information is cut down in size. Joshdboz 19:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Delete !voters seem to be misunderstanding the difference between a valid subarticle and POV fork. RFerreira 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge The Human Rights Watch article is less than 32kb. Therefor there isn't need to sub-article and it can be merged.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. --pIrish 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• merge, criticism is a valid topic but need not be treated separately. the israel bit certainly could be edited down - it smells of a defensive rant to me personally. Aaronbrick 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article seems reasonably clear and NPOVish. It seems there is enough material for a whole article. --Hobit 03:10, 22 March 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.