Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversy articles

:{{la|List of controversy articles}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_controversy_articles Stats])

:({{Find sources|List of controversy articles}})

Unnecessary list, does nothing that a category can't. Deprodded by author for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, in response to the prodding of List of fastest-selling products, and many other articles simultaneously, I responded: "[This article should be AFD'd instead] because I think...this article, like the other articles which you have prodded for deletion, are not worthy of deletion, and rather than argue with you one on one I think a community discussion would be much more fruitful... especially in regard to the directory-type articles - a new form of article that many editors showed their support for at one of the AFD discussions". I deprodded the article as that action had not been taken, and I did not want to see the article prematurely deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles for further discussion on these types of articles.--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable as an article, should be a category --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• delete. Do we create lists grouping by the presence of a given word in title? - Nabla (talk)
• I don't see why not.... I think it's actually a very useful form of navigation throughout Wikipedia. Yes, perhaps this one is the broadest of the bunch (so delete away, if you must), but I think the thinking behind these types of articles' existence is sound.--Coin945 (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• No it is not, I think. The connection between the articles is slim, so a person reading one of them is hardly interested in another, and almost surely not interested in reading the whole bunch. Whatever usefulness it has now will be lost in the near future, because the list(s) is a maintenance nightmare, and eventually may even became detrimental because it will look like a complete list but it will lack a bunch of articles, ultimately making them harder to find, thus harder to navigate. - Nabla (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• I guess you're going to have to face that with any really long list article you have, like Lists of lists of lists.... hmmmm..... :/--Coin945 (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2013 (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.