Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy

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 (no consensus) - several editing options were raised: ranging from what could be seen as (soft)redirecting to Wiktionary; up to expansion. Those are better addressed at the article's talk page. - Nabla 16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• Delete and make a disambiguation per nomination. It's little more than a big list and a few definitions, and I don't see how an encyclopedic article can be made out of this topic. Sidatio 16:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "Dictionary definition" the article certainly isn't, as it describes the semantic relations between the subject matter and other areas, rather than merely defining it.

Accordingly, it is the wholly considered opinion of this editor that the nomination is without merit and should be rejected. Thus, the verdict is keep. Digwuren 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The list has grown rather longish, and may grow more. Leaving only the most notable ones in the article and categorising everything under Category:Controversies should be given serious thought. Digwuren 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles ? read it Wikipedia articles : Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. Wiktionary articles : Articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title.Thus No reason to delete an article dedicated to the concept of Controversy. There is only a need to improve the article. Keep and Improve.Oe kintaro 11:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh... and maybe a section for "Wikipedia Controversies" is needed :D.Oe kintaro 11:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think this can be an article. Look at it piece-by-piece:

• First paragraph: Definition
• Second paragraph: Fluff and original research
• Third paragraph: An arbitrary quote to fluff the article up
• "In law": Legal definition, links to a different topic
• "In early Christianity": Different topic altogether

This has all the makings of a disambiguation page/list. It consists of poorly thrown together ideas in an attempt to create an article where there is none.-Wafulz 12:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A section for "Wikipedia Controversies" IS needed indeed. So, until an alternative is in place, we should not burn the little unscholarly piece we got...imadf 11:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)_{Note: Message was added by 75.56.196.129}[reply]

• We explictly don't need such a section. We already have
  avoid self-reference.-Wafulz 18:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. The article is a glorified disambiguation page, but it has more meat than most dab pages, given the inclusion of meaty elements such as Controversy#In early Christianity. The existence of articles such as Controversy (album) points to the need for a disambiguation page. --orlady 19:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 03:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a dicdef, a couple of unsourced paragraphs on loosely related issues which would (if sourced) be much better off in more specific articles, followed by a rather random and incomplete list of "controversies" which I don't think could ever be complete or maintainable. Iain99 11:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- per lain99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cap'n Walker (talk • contribs)
• Delete. A very generic word - cannot be more than dicdef. And there is no need to disambiguate: each specific controversy is not called simply "conntroversy". `'Míkka 20:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete By a strict dicdef, every issue is "controversial." The list would be inexhaustible. Pat Payne 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a dictionary definition with a lot of hopelessly vague stuff tacked on. Sxeptomaniac 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per orlady. Mandsford 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you in favour of making it a disambiguation page or keeping it as is?-Wafulz 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the small top portion and remove the totally unencyclopedic list. DGG (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Many of the examples included therein are there for the sake of having an example, and are not very good. A total rewrite would be nice, but I don't consider "Controversy" article material.
• Keep per orlday. Mathmo ^Talk

• Again, are you in favour of keeping the article? Or are you in favour of making it a dab page.-Wafulz 13:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and stub Discussion of law and Christianity move article beyond
  WP:DICDEF
  status. See also links should be converted to a category and removed from the article. 14:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (supplement to my earlier comment) - Upon reflection, I think it makes the most sense to keep the dab notices for the bands, keep the first few article-worthy paragraphs about law and Christianity, and allow the long lists of specific controversies to be converted to one or more categories.--orlady 19:24, 12 August 2007 (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.