277:
to easily compare and contrast "Criticism of Isla
Windows XP" seems like a major plus to me. How are these criticism/critique articles different across Knowledge? How does this information help us in providing the best quality material for the encyclopedia? Maybe there are some weak links in the chain that haven't been categrorised yet, or that people have forgotten about. I can only find good in articles like this, which is why I have made many.--
514:
what areas are over- or under-represented when it comes to these types of articles? Can the way criticism/critique articles on different topics are written provide a template for how others should be? I think the concepts behind these types of articles should be analysed as well as a simple vote for keep or delete, as I believe there is much goodness for
Knowledge that will be revealed throughout such a discussion.--
496:. Does not make sense to try to catalog every WP article with criticisms of the subject, for example it would also need to include any articles with text about criticisms of a topic. This list would be so large that it's useless. Also, it would be rife for misuse by editors looking to advertise their "criticisms of..." article.
578:. I can't see that the arguments for keeping are any less valid this time than they were 5½ months ago. For the reasons stated by Northamerica1000 and postdlf last time, and by Coin945 this time, this list is navigationally and organizationally useful; at minimum, move it into WP space rather than delete. --
276:
As creator, and as an argument brought up in the previous AFD brought up - this is a very handy navigation page that can coexist with categories. I for one hate navigating through categories and find this a much easier way to see in one hit what articles share this common thread. In fact, being able
695:
Personally I am not a fan of categories at all, as currently implemented, so am probably not qualified to comment. And it's a question for a different forum. But I would object to those categories on the same grounds as to the subject of this AfD - they are not grouping articles as to their content
513:
In answer to BigJim707's initial question, yes. It is indeed a complete list. In other news, I think rather than saying delete with great haste, we should instead (or at least also) be discussing what can be learnt from such a list. Does this reveal naming anomalies within
Knowledge? Does it show
404:
does appear to allow lists like this – those that "serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of
Knowledge". I agree with the point made in the previous AfD that a wider discussion about the appropriateness of indexes would be more constructive than nominating individual lists for deletion.
452:
Is this all the criticism articles WP has? I would have thought there would be hundreds. I would vote for delete since this mainly seems to be for insiders (WP editors), rather than for readers. Having said that it is very interesting, and somewhat amusing, but that's only to us I'm afraid.
621:
says that isn't a reason for deletion: "For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa."
81:
780:- I question the relevance and validity of such lists as they are, by their very nature, subjective, based on the creator's criteria for selecting the content. Inevitably, other articles and sources will have been left out, making the list
660:
If these articles just don't have any right to be on
Knowledge in their current form, (and as I still feel that categorisation in this fashion would extremely useful), what do we all think about categories based on these subarticle topics:
182:
531:- not needed, and as people have said, essentially private to WP and also indiscriminate as thousands of articles have sections (or unnamed paragraphs) on criticism. If it's a personal selection of such articles, then it falls foul
76:
721:
hitting the nail on the head in the previous AfD. The arguments against were in my opinion insufficient, is there any reason why this list should not be held up to
Knowledge's notability requirements?
176:
108:
103:
221:
arguments. I fail to see how this is a valid list, given that there is already at least one category navigating all these articles, and this does not serve any purpose the category does not.
112:
142:
95:
757:). Arguments over the usefulness/harmlessness of the article or whether it conforms to the manual of style are rendered moot if the concept behind the article doesn't even pass
135:
295:
If it has any value as support material for editors - which I doubt, but accept the possibility - then it should be in
Knowledge: namespace, not in article namespace. -
761:. The selection of criticism and critique articles hosted on Knowledge has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
819:
797:
770:
705:
686:
652:
631:
605:
587:
570:
544:
523:
505:
480:
462:
440:
414:
388:
352:
304:
286:
268:
248:
228:
60:
806:
There is no bias involved in this article whatsoever. The criteria for selection is pretty straightforward, and clearly outlined in the intro. Articles like
236:
431:
really apply. For instance, the entries can't be annotated, the list can't contain any items that don't exist as articles, and no sourcing is necessary.
197:
164:
696:
or theme, but as to their form or implementation. Category:French dramatists - OK; Category:Articles containing the word Racine - Not OK.
158:
562:
154:
99:
204:
17:
662:
91:
66:
810:
have survived despite needing to be updated from time to time. I see no reason why these sorts of articles cant exist too.--
383:
259:, the listed article have only a very loose connection. Say, Criticism of Islan is related to Criticism of Windows XP?. -
170:
670:
666:
639:
and recreate in WP space. A list of semantically unconnected articles is simply not encyclopedic. A simple test is
674:
838:
40:
596:
If some editors find this list useful for housekeeping purposes, then I am happy for it to exist in WP space.
627:
540:
344:
423:
I will add, though, that since this particular article isn't so much a list of topics as a list of similar
807:
558:
834:
436:
410:
380:
36:
643:. In general I don't think so, whereas I can quite see the usefuleness for Wikipedians themselves.
766:
718:
601:
583:
501:
493:
476:
458:
214:
190:
793:
746:
745:
in any way. (Interesting to note that all the examples of navigation lists that are discussed on
734:
623:
536:
401:
336:
218:
815:
682:
555:
519:
282:
244:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
833:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
754:
701:
648:
432:
406:
376:
364:
316:
742:
722:
566:
300:
264:
471:
Policy-wise it could also be said that it is based only on a primary source, WP itself.
762:
597:
579:
532:
497:
472:
454:
428:
331:
789:
758:
750:
738:
618:
729:, it makes no exemption for navigational/organizational lists. Nor, as suggested by
811:
730:
678:
515:
278:
240:
54:
129:
697:
644:
641:
would this article be of interest to someone using this site as an encyclopedia?
727:"Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables."
296:
260:
82:
Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles (2nd nomination)
367:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
319:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
617:
I fail to see why we should delete it just because there's a category, when
554:
Index of loosely-connected articles. A category would be better.
827:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
492:
The grouping of articles- hence the basis for this article- is
400:, although it's hard to make a policy-based argument because
77:
Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles
125:
121:
117:
189:
374:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
326:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
52:. Without prejudice to the creation of categories.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
841:). No further edits should be made to this page.
741:provide an alternative guideline or override
203:
8:
235:Note: This debate has been included in the
237:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
234:
427:of article, I can't see that many of the
663:Category:Criticism or critique articles
92:List of criticism and critique articles
74:
67:List of criticism and critique articles
7:
429:advantages of a list over a category
753:have long since been redirected to
73:
213:Previous AFD kept due entirely to
24:
658:Here's a question I pose to thee
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
671:Category:Bibliography articles
328:
1:
667:Category:Controversy articles
353:00:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
305:16:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
287:11:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
269:23:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
249:02:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
229:20:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
820:12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
798:11:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
771:04:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
675:Category:Comparison articles
61:22:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
706:22:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
687:13:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
653:12:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
632:22:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
606:07:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
588:16:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
571:13:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
545:13:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
524:12:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
506:11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
481:07:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
463:07:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
441:06:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
415:06:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
389:04:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
858:
830:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
808:list of lists of lists
788:cannot be ruled out.--
784:at its inception and
72:AfDs for this article:
48:The result was
391:
355:
251:
849:
832:
387:
386:
373:
369:
350:
349:
347:
339:
334:
325:
321:
226:
224:Ten Pound Hammer
208:
207:
193:
145:
133:
115:
57:
34:
857:
856:
852:
851:
850:
848:
847:
846:
845:
839:deletion review
828:
379:
375:
362:
345:
337:
332:
330:
314:
222:
150:
141:
106:
90:
87:
70:
55:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
855:
853:
844:
843:
824:
823:
822:
801:
800:
774:
773:
711:
710:
709:
708:
690:
689:
655:
634:
611:
610:
609:
608:
591:
590:
573:
548:
547:
535:. It must go.
526:
508:
490:Strong delete.
486:
485:
484:
483:
466:
465:
446:
445:
444:
443:
418:
417:
394:
393:
392:
371:
370:
359:
358:
357:
356:
323:
322:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
290:
289:
271:
253:
252:
211:
210:
147:
86:
85:
84:
79:
71:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
854:
842:
840:
836:
831:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
804:
803:
802:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
776:
775:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
713:
712:
707:
703:
699:
694:
693:
692:
691:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
659:
656:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
635:
633:
629:
625:
624:Colapeninsula
620:
616:
613:
612:
607:
603:
599:
595:
594:
593:
592:
589:
585:
581:
577:
574:
572:
568:
564:
560:
557:
553:
550:
549:
546:
542:
538:
537:Chiswick Chap
534:
530:
527:
525:
521:
517:
512:
509:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
487:
482:
478:
474:
470:
469:
468:
467:
464:
460:
456:
451:
448:
447:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
421:
420:
419:
416:
412:
408:
403:
399:
396:
395:
390:
385:
382:
378:
372:
368:
366:
361:
360:
354:
351:
348:
343:
340:
335:
324:
320:
318:
313:
312:
306:
302:
298:
294:
293:
292:
291:
288:
284:
280:
275:
272:
270:
266:
262:
258:
255:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
233:
232:
231:
230:
225:
220:
216:
206:
202:
199:
196:
192:
188:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
156:
153:
152:Find sources:
148:
144:
140:
137:
131:
127:
123:
119:
114:
110:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
88:
83:
80:
78:
75:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
829:
826:
785:
781:
777:
726:
714:
657:
640:
636:
614:
575:
556:Presidentman
551:
528:
510:
494:WP:SYNTHESIS
489:
449:
424:
397:
363:
341:
327:
315:
273:
256:
223:
215:WP:ITSUSEFUL
212:
200:
194:
186:
179:
173:
167:
161:
151:
138:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
782:incomplete
747:WP:LISTPURP
735:WP:LISTPURP
433:DoctorKubla
407:DoctorKubla
402:WP:LISTPURP
377:Sue Rangell
219:WP:HARMLESS
177:free images
835:talk page
763:Rubiscous
677:etc. ??--
598:1292simon
580:Arxiloxos
498:1292simon
473:BigJim707
455:BigJim707
241:• Gene93k
37:talk page
837:or in a
790:Zananiri
743:WP:LISTN
723:WP:LISTN
567:Talkback
563:contribs
365:Relisted
317:Relisted
136:View log
39:or in a
812:Coin945
755:portals
731:postdlf
725:states
679:Coin945
533:WP:NPOV
516:Coin945
511:Comment
333:Cheers,
279:Coin945
183:WP refs
171:scholar
109:protect
104:history
56:MBisanz
778:Delete
759:WP:GNG
751:WP:CLN
739:WP:CLN
719:Warden
715:Delete
698:Mcewan
645:Mcewan
637:Delete
619:WP:CLT
552:Delete
529:Delete
450:Delete
398:Delete
257:delete
155:Google
113:delete
50:delete
786:bias
733:, do
425:types
297:Nabla
261:Nabla
198:JSTOR
159:books
143:Stats
130:views
122:watch
118:links
16:<
816:talk
794:talk
767:talk
749:and
717:per
702:talk
683:talk
649:talk
628:talk
615:Keep
602:talk
584:talk
576:Keep
559:talk
541:talk
520:talk
502:talk
477:talk
459:talk
437:talk
411:talk
301:talk
283:talk
274:Keep
265:talk
245:talk
217:and
191:FENS
165:news
126:logs
100:talk
96:edit
737:or
329:--
227:•
205:TWL
134:– (
818:)
796:)
769:)
704:)
685:)
673:,
669:,
665:,
651:)
630:)
622:--
604:)
586:)
569:)
561:·
543:)
522:)
504:)
479:)
461:)
439:)
413:)
381:✍
346:ey
338:Ri
303:)
285:)
267:)
247:)
239:.
185:)
128:|
124:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
814:(
792:(
765:(
700:(
681:(
647:(
626:(
600:(
582:(
565:(
539:(
518:(
500:(
475:(
457:(
435:(
409:(
384:✉
342:l
299:(
281:(
263:(
243:(
209:)
201:·
195:·
187:·
180:·
174:·
168:·
162:·
157:(
149:(
146:)
139:·
132:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.