Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial Reddit communities

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. (non-admin closure) Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Reddit communities

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

Disparate list of links that have subjectively been termed "controversial" by editors. This is original research, and without sources to define these subreddits specifically as being "controversial", has no place on Wikipedia. Zambelo; talk 11:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a spinout of the "Controversies involving Reddit" section from the main Reddit article. Each section has one or more independent sources detailing a controversy that took place involving the community in question - 1 2 3 4, and most sections even have sources directly calling the community or their views "controversial" - 1 2 3 4. If a section does not warrant inclusion, it should be removed, but that is a matter for the talk page and not AfD. Breadblade (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are sourced and the alternative to a page collecting controversial Reddit communities would be separate articles on /r/jailbait, /r/creepshots, /r/mensrights etc. that people would just call to merge anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Every inclusion here is well sourced. It would be undue to merge all of this content into the Reddit article, so it's better to keep this as a separate article --80.193.191.143 (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above; article is well-sourced and is definitely not original research. The communities aren't deemed controversial by editors, but by the reliable sources referenced in the article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. In most cases, it's the controversy that was notable rather than the community. That a creepshots community exists may be controversial in its own right, but not that a MensRights community exists. Men's Rights is certainly a controversial cause, but unlike creepshots or jailbait the controversy isn't over its mere existence. And certainly /r/technology is not a "controversial community," but a community in/for which there has been controversy. So I'd say keep but rename to something like Reddit controversies, List of Reddit controversies (with formatting changes), or something more general if there's more that could be included like Social impact of Reddit. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 07:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhododendrites: I'd propose this on the article's talk page; much better place to discuss the matter to get a consensus. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely. Copied it over there. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand. It's got plenty of references. Some of them look weak or unreliable, but that can be fixed through normal editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the nominator's point, even if I don't agree with it. I've seen the same issue arise when there's a "Controversies" section in an article, and someone disputes including incidents unless a source explicitly uses the word "controversy" in describing it. While it can lead to inconsistent standards, sometimes you just need to wing it and rely on group consensus for what to include within the scope of a section or article. Agyle (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Quite the opposite of WP:OR, this is well sourced (as something titled "controversial" should be) and the length and content warrants a standalone article. I don't necessarily disagree with Rhododendrites that it should be renamed, but deleting the article certainly isn't an answer. - Aoidh (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2014 (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.