Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial issues

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 Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Definite POV issues among other problems. Dreadstar † 14:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial issues

This is pure WP:POV. Who decides what is controversial or not? What's the point in having a list when we have cats? Also, what's with the biggest section being about the USA? WP:BIAS. No one can decide on something so non-neutral. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 00:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Scarian. From "American Idol" to "9/11" and back again. Do me a favour. Channel ® 00:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject matter is too broad and too ill-defined. Nsk92 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and file under List of extraordinarily bad ideas for articles. This is neither needed nor maintainable in any reasonable sense. --Dhartung | Talk 01:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per what everybody's saying. Good grief. Next we'll have a "List of All Lists Which Are Not Members of Themselves." RayAYang (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:IINFO, undue weight. Protonk (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Create List of uncontroversial issues as an amusing alternative to deletion. --Rividian (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add to List of Controversial Lists. Or just Delete.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Utter nonsensical article, vague inclusion criteria. What next? List of honest issues? List of dishonest issues? List of good issues? List of bad issues? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list, definition of "controversial" is subject to POV. JIP | Talk 04:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added to List of deletion discussions that are not at all controversial. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a lot of these biased lists floating around. I recently found the list of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Much like deciding whether something is controversial, how do you decide whether something is or isn't pseudoscience? Kind of like a list of stupid ideas. The list of pseudoscieces, however, has been suggested for deletion twice already and has been saved both times. I urge everyone who is voting to delete this biased list, to go and get that other biased list deleted as well.Wikigonish (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially a list with no clear inclusion criteria whatsoever (since just about any issue could be plausibly claimed to be 'controversial' in a certain context). I imagine the point of it is to collect all of Wikipedia's 'controversy' articles together in one place, but we already have Category:Controversies for that, and it does the job much better than this list. Terraxos (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I like it. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 11:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ILIKEIT. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - way too broad, unviable, requires WP:NPOV violation in order to list anything, potential WP:BLP issues, unmaintainable ... I think I'll just stop there. 23skidoo (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — If judging something as "controversial" or not is considered POV, why do so many Wikipedia articles, including the Category:Controversies, have it in their title? — Timwi (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCompletely unnecessary given Category:Controversies. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete waaay too broad to be encyclopedic, and there's a category anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 24 July 2008 (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.