Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia (3rd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. -- Steel 12:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Wikipedia

Criticism of Wikipedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article appears to be a content fork. Article appears to be a catch all for criticism of Wikipedia and does not establish that said criticism is a phenomenon that is itself notable for inclusion as an article. Additionally this article is redundant to Wikipedia:Criticisms, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great, and Wikipedia:Replies to common objections and the information collected in this article could be merged into those projects. Deleting this article should not be considered censorship as a majority of the properly cited material could be condensed and included in the Wikipedia article. The rest should go to the project space articles. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP - until the merge actually does occur, the article does need to stick around. Dstanfor 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP as per Dstanfor. The suite of articles "Wikipedia:Replies to common objections", "Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great", and "Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great" are all worse for style, content, OR, and POV. Wikipedia:Criticisms is a list, and I thought we weren't supposed to do those. MARussellPESE 21:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is different from the above mentioned projects in that this is in article space and not Wikipedia space. Criticism of Wikipedia is the topic of enough news reports to establish notability. CovenantD 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep until merge is completed. News 92.3 TTV/620 TTV/860 TTV 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reason I'd vote to delete a Praise of Wikipedia article: WP:SELF. Danny Lilithborne 23:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability of "Criticism of Wikipedia" is shown by multiple independent and reliable sources with articles devoted to the subject. Interesting and useful article. This is a good article; Wikipedia:Criticisms, appears to be just a collection of copyvios strung together. Edison 23:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep- This article is very important to Wikipedia, especially as Wikipedia gains popularity. Arbiteroftruth 23:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - we're notable, and often criticized. I wouldn't merge with Wikipedia; I would support a more balanced presentation where both praise and criticism are included, so this is less POV-ish. But I would start with the current article. --EngineerScotty 00:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable by any standard and mentioned by Jimbo himself as an excellent article. Criticisms of Wikipedia appear often in the media and should be discussed in depth on the encyclopedia. I can't think of any possible justification for deleting this valuable and informative article. Casey Abell 02:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; the criticisms are verifiable, exist in reliable sources, and can be expressed in an NPOV manner; no problem keeping this. Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I do like the idea of a Praise of Wikipedia article. ISD 10:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Wikipedia:Criticisms and soft redirect (or redirect to Wikipedia and create a link from there). Not mainspace material per WP:COI, WP:ASR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, we allow criticism articles on many subjects, but not Wikipedia itself? Please Wikipedia, learn to accept and deal with criticism.... --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Considering almost everyone here supports keeping the article it is safe to say that Wikipedia has learned to deal with criticism. A few people wanting to delete this says little about Wikipedia as a whole. --67.68.154.80 19:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not about allowing criticism of Wikipedia, it's about avoiding content forks for the purpose of avoiding WP:NPOV. This is in line with the WP:POVFORK policy. Wikipedia already acknowledges its shortcommings in the project space. A good question to ask to determine if a criticism article is appropriate for inclusion would be: Is this a subject that would be taught on an academic level at an institution of higher learning? —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd usually say this is clearly project-namespace material, but one look at mainstream media says Wikipedia is frequently loved... and hated. Wikipedia praising and bashing have been clearly shown to be good hobbies for prominent public figures. And no matter the topic, the negative critique is always louder. The present arrangement is adequate. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - To Wikipedia. The article inherently takes the view of negativity. Praise of Wikipedia is equally troublesome. For every article that has enough information on it, should we just create two separate articles? Good things about the subject and Bad things about the subject? I am in favor of criticism being fully integrated into articles, even preferably not even in its own "Criticisms" section. These "Criticism of..." articles are like roping off a section of the Wikipedia article space where NPOV doesn't apply. Wickethewok 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe the more extensive views on subjects should be in a single article which combines negative criticism and praise into something like "Perception of..." or a title that doesn't suck. Wickethewok 20:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • NPOV does apply to "Criticism of..." articles. Such an article should report each notable criticism without adopting, and should also report notable responses to the criticisms. JamesMLane t c 10:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per others. --- RockMFR 00:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge This page among the others has nearly the same content. I suggest merging.--PrestonH 03:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepIt would be wrong to delete an article on such a subject, even if it partially overlaps other criticism. That we removed such an article would be the strongest criticism of all, and I think it would become known to our disadvantage. If we deleted it, we'd deserve the negative publicity. DGG 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanupRaveenS 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is already too long, this can't be merged. Bramlet Abercrombie 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would bend over backward to keep an article hostile to the project, but here no bending is required. JamesMLane t c 10:51, 13 December 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.