Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of criticism and critique articles[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a list of Wikipedia articles by purpose. It doesn't seem particularly encyclopaedic, and I feel that it violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:SELFREF W. D. Graham 14:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We probably need to have an RFC someday about whether Index pages like this are "in" or "out." Opinion varies and we need to form a consensus... Carrite (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've got a few other articles like this including List of controversy articles and List of comparison articles. I happen to think they're exceptionally useful and are a great way to track what types of articles have a certain spinoff and how they use them. I'd also like to point out that List of lists of lists also fits into this category as it only lists wiki lists of lists, not all. That article should be renamed, like I suggested on the talkpage... Oh btw an obvious keep as creator for me on this article. :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why don't we close this debate and the two of you get together to frame up an RFC on the question? Most of these index pages, when they are brought here, seem to be kept — but there's really no doctrinal grounds for that, it's more a matter of IAR or IT'S USEFUL. If we do allow such navigational index pages, where are the lines to be drawn? Carrite (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that if other parties would be happy with it. --W. D. Graham 00:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with how RfCs work, but sure, I'm fine with that to... might need a tiny bit of coaching on what to do exactly though :).--Coin945 (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of these index pages, when they are brought here, seem to be kept — but there's really no doctrinal grounds for that..." That such indexes are usually kept is a doctrinal ground, as it represents WP:CONSENSUS on the issue. Requiring a preexisting, codified rule to support the community's express and repeated consensus is getting things backwards, as WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY explains. Also, it should be obvious that whether an index of Wikipedia content is useful should be one of the key factors in deciding whether or not to keep it, as the whole point of an index is its utility in organizing and locating content, just as it always has been with any traditional print encyclopedia or other reference work. But even if you still want codified doctrine, WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN do codify the validity of WP indexes as navigational tools for readers and editors. postdlf (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to fail WP:LISTN "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" and I'm not seeing or finding such sources. Warden (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is more of a directory-type list, so it's only natural there will be no "independent reliable sources". The only sources involved are: [1] and [2]. :) --Coin945 (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is a useful navigation page for Wikipedia pages whose titles are based upon criticism and critiques. How does deletion of this list improve the encyclopedia? Also, per WP:NOTDUP, this list is complementary to Category:Criticisms, rather than inappropriate. Also, this article doesn't particularly appear to fail WP:NOTDIR (It's a focused list, not indiscriminate) nor WP:SELFREF (article lists and indexes for Wikipedia are common, not included in WP:SELFREF). Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia policy doesn't really cover lists of this sort, which are not encyclopedic in the sense that you wouldn't expect to find them in Britannica, but are useful for navigation (some such pages are in the Special namespace but not all are). I can't see a reason to delete it, or even a reason for nominating it. The arguments for deletion simply cite policies, but that is not the way to conduct an AfD debate: the actual policies exist for definite reasons, and the policy articles explain what these reasons are. So explain what is bad about this article. Does it do harm to Wikipedia? --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is useful for navigation, and if annotated would provide more information than a comparable category would provide.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | express _ 16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Why can't this just be moved to, say,WP:Criticism Articles? What possible justification is there to keep this in article-space? Tarc (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largely per NorthAmerica1000. The nom's WP:SELFREF complaint is off the mark, as that style guide is entirely about article content referring to their own nature as articles ("This article is about George Washington"), and doesn't deal with indexes or any kind of list at all; list indexes are naturally about what Wikipedia articles exist and so are not improper self-references. Warden's WP:LISTN !vote is also irrelevant as Coin945 explained, as LISTN has nothing to do with this kind of index; see instead WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN for navigational/organizational lists. That takes care of all the actual deletion arguments. postdlf (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per standing consensus that such navigational articles be kept. I disagree with Postdif that ad hoc ITSUSEFUL/IAR arguments like this are either satisfactory or permanent, but that's where we're at in lieu of any formal test of community consensus on the matter. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.