Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skepticwiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. I acknowledge that going purely by the numbers, this is a no consensus, but those advocating keep seem to have a weak grasp of what sort of third-party sources are .necessary to be able to write an encyclopaedia article. I refer specifically to assertions that copying a website's own blurb onto another site constitutes a third-party source (the original editor withdrew this, but others have agreed with his reasoning and not withdrawn), and others which make no reference to Wikipedia policies at all. AfD is not a vote, verifiability is a non-negotiable pillar of writing an encyclopaedia, this article has poor external references, and the discussion below provides no comfort that this state of affairs will be improved. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skepticwiki

Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. I don't see any reliable independent sources writing about this site in depth (as is required). A search for references to the site, yields mainly links from blogs and message boards, and nothing of value. Rob 16:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not withdrawal the AfD It has been up for 5 days and seems a little too late. Afterall it looks like it be kept after discounting the sock puppets. Arbusto 01:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The source for the wiki is the wiki and the related blog. The article hasn't even been up for 24 hours. Arbusto 17:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The guidelines clearly require *independent* sources. Without them, this is just advertising, telling us what Skepticwiki wishes to say about itself. --Rob 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa rank about 800,000 and no significant attention from elsewhere. Fan1967 18:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This wiki now has 432 articles and gets roughly 28 google hits [1]. Hence, the article is far too premature and also reads like advertising. -- JJay 19:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia users should skeptics too, when it comes to claims of notability. BigE1977 22:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, doesn't meet WP:WEB, doesn't meet WP:V, etc. Darquis 22:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: first edit ever done on April 30 March 5. This is user's third ever edit. Arbusto 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The user's first edit seems to be to March 5. Prior to this AFD they participated in large number of other AFDs. As of this second, they have about 250 edits in total, mostly to AFDs and talk pages. Perhaps your comments about "April 30" and "third ever edit" is because that's what is shown (as of this second) in the last 50 edit results in their User Contributions (by default only 50 results are shown in one page). But, as you can see, its possible to page back to find more results. --Rob 04:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
As FeloniousMonk explained below, you and JJay have shown (with incivility on your talk pages now archived) this is WP:POINT. Arbusto 03:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Withdraw - I honestly do not think this article belongs on Wikipedia. It still does not meet WP:WEB. See the nature/quaity of the sources. However, I don't really care about this article, or any article you've edited. So, I'll give in to what I consider to be unfair pressure, and stay away from your articles. You now have nothing to complain about me, and I ask you to avoid future unfair statements about me. --Rob 05:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am going to go against the trend and argue for keeping this. It is relatively new and most mention is on blogs, but word about it has circulated among the membership of Skeptic Associations. I have put a couple of links on the talk page. The first is an influencial web site run by a member of the Australian Skeptics, but independent of them. The second gives a positive mention of this wiki in a PC Magazine that very sensibly and in a reasonably detailed way discusses medical advice online and its dangers. I think it is mentioned in the "Australian Skeptic" but I do not have the link to hand. I would be surprised indeed if it was not mentioned in the US Skeptics magazine. I think it should be left for a while and it will develop. Just leave warning tags on it about sources, etc. --Bduke 23:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The first link, which you said is "an influencial web site" and "independent", is merely a copy/paste from Skepticwiki's own About page. You can't say something is independent of Skepticwiki, if Skepticwiki wrote it. The other link you gave is better, but it's only one relevant sentence. --Rob 00:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, you are technically correct about the first point. Since I know the guy who writes that site, I was sure he agreed with what he wrote, but that is of course WP:OR. ratbags.com is a very well known skeptics site. --Bduke 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, --Bickerstein 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This is "Bickerstein's" first and only ever edit. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. Arbusto 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 05:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JJay. -- ReyBrujo 07:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because it's currently deficient doesn't mean it won't be improved. This nom confirms my suspicion of a personal campaign I've suspected for some time. FeloniousMonk 20:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bduke. Guettarda 20:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per mention in PC Magazine for now. Give the article makers time to come up with more references. If they can't re-AfD in a month. JoshuaZ 21:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason to delete it. •Jim62sch• 22:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Arbustoo has added several links that refer to this wiki, including the one from the Australian Skeptics that I thought was there but had missed. There are US Skeptics links also. --Bduke 02:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Nom. --Holy Cows 22:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This is "Holy Cows" fourth ever edit. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. Arbusto 00:27, 5 May 2006 (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.