Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment

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) A Guy into Books (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment

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

POV split. WP doesn't do that. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge back into Work Capability Assessment. This was actually created as a page WP:SPLIT to reduce the size of the main article. See the discussion at Talk:Work Capability Assessment § Too long; can it be split? for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per North America --Penbat (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Work Capability Assessment then split it some other way if really neccessary. A POV split is the wrong way to cut up a too long article. Separating "Criticism of Foo" from the "Foo" article is inherently problematic. A much better (and NPOV) split was proposed by Dr Greg Wood at Talk:Work Capability Assessment#Too long; can it be split? to separate out the "Incapacity Benefit Reassessment Programme. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A problem is that the original WCA article was substantially re-worded and at the same time criticisms of the test were moved into a completely new article (not by me) — the one under discussion. Maybe revert the WCA article to before 'my name is not dave' began his work and then move the IB reassessment chunk to its own page? Dr Greg Wood (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A legitimate split. Nom states that Wikipedia "doesn't do" POV-splits - perhaps they haven't seen Criticism of Islam, Criticism of the Israeli government or Criticism of the Quran? AusLondonder (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to something neutral like "Reception of the Work Capability Assessment" or "Work Capability Assessment controversy"—and balance the content accordingly. The guideline WP:CFORK has two relevant sections. The first, WP:POVFORK, specifically discourages (but does not prohibit) "Criticism of..." article titles, and encourages the use of more neutral terms like "reception" and "perception". The second, WP:SPINOFF, gives examples where the controversy about topic X can legitimately be split off from the article about X to a separate article—where all sides of the controversy can be covered. That is what is needed here. There seems to be consensus that the article Work Capability Assessment was getting too long. The controversy can and should be split off, but not in a way that prejudices the points of view covered. As WP:POVFORK notes: '(consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).' Also, the new article on the controversy should have a brief (and neutral) summary in the main article, as advised by WP:SPINOFF.

—Syrenka V (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment's sentiments are fine; the thing is, the original WCA had all that — then an attempt just to shrink the article a bit led us to where we are now. Dr Greg Wood (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I'm also not convinced that you can have an article about something that has been much criticised and then decant all the criticisms to a separate article. 'Criticism of Pearl Harbour', 'Criticism of Jack the Ripper'? Dr Greg Wood (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed cases where the consensus of reliable sources is so overwhelmingly negative that to describe the topic dispassionately is to criticize it. WP:NPOV expressly allows for such cases. But it's hard to believe that a piece of 21st-century right-wing / neoliberal politics like the WCA is really in that category. Surely it has significant defenders!

There can also be cases where the criticisms of X (whether they have RS consensus or not) are directed at nearly every part or aspect of X. Even then, trying to include them piecemeal in every section of the article is likely to be distracting when the reader is trying to understand X, and splitting them off into a separate article is likely to allow for clearer exposition.

—Syrenka V (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. This is from WP:SPINOFF:

"Sometimes, when an article gets too long (see Wikipedia:Article size), an unduly large section of the article is made into its own highly detailed subarticle, and the handling of that subject in the main article is condensed into a brief summary section. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new subarticle is sometimes called a "spinoff" from the main article ("spinout" leads elsewhere); Wikipedia:Summary style explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a forbidden POV fork."

I think the IB reassessment chunk, which was pretty large, should have been spun off. Instead, this Criticism page was built from numerous fragments of the original WCA article by 'my name is not Dave' a few months ago.Dr Greg Wood (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not do both? By all means create the IB reassessment article. That's likely to be short enough that controversy specific to IB reassessment can fit into a section within the article. But the need for a separate, general article about the WCA controversy remains.

—Syrenka V (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now after today's editing, to make it more obviously balanced Dr Greg Wood (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to renaming to a different title. Useful split of an overly long article, per User:Northamerica1000. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:30, 9 September 2017 (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.