• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wikipedia article considered for deletion

TsarBomba

One Damn Dirty Ape
TsarBomba
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
808
Some nincompoops over at Wikipedia have put the article relating to Skeptoid on a discussion for possible deletion because it is "not notable." Really. Here is the link to the wikipedia discussion.

With the plethora of total crap that one can find on Wikipedia, this seems to be totally amazing.

In case you are wondering how this happened, here is the link that brought the Skeptoid article to the attention of the Wikipedia editors.

Essentially, a listener of Dogma Free America (my podcast) was trying like the dickens to get a Wikipedia article for that show. He wrote an entry for the show, but it kept getting deleted. Wikipedia kept saying that the show was "not notable." Apparently Wikipedia has a specific podcast-related rule to keep every teenager with a microphone and computer from getting a wikipedia article about their new podcast. This rule requires that the podcast be mentioned in the mainstream media. When Wikipedia said that Dogma Free America was not notable, the listener pointed out that Skeptoid and The Skeptics Guide were similarly situated, but nobody had ever tagged them for deletion. In what can only be described as a fit of pique, the august editors at Wikipedia did just that, and tagged both for deletion. The discussion for the Skeptic's Guide article seems to be strogly leanding toward keeping it.

Uuugghhh!
 
Heh. Deletion at Wikipedia, I love that game.

It's got nothing to do with "building a quality encyclopedia" or any of that other crap the Wakipedians go on with. It's basically a tussle between two competing factions, the Inclusionists (boo hiss) and the Deletionists (hooray!!).

I'm an avid Deletionista The more substantial and noteworthy an article that you get deleted, the greater your cred - which is measured in the level of fury expressed by those cream-puff Inclusionists. What's even better is you don't have to go to any real effort by "improving" articles. You just point, click and voila - the article is pretty much gonna be ashcanned.

A good way to start out is by learning the tactics of Speedy Deletion. You get some automatic tools (Twinkle is nice) and tag articles for Speedy Deletion as soon as they appear. Don't pay any attention to the subject or anything like that, just apply an arbitrary criteria, lack of notability is the safest bet.

It's best to pick on the work of new editors as they have no idea what's going on, write crappy articles and react badly when you tag their work. 95% of the time one of the legion of jaded, lazy Sysops will just see the pink tag and delete the article without a second thought.

If the article creator gets cranky, you just wave something like WP:CIVIL, or WP:NPA around. Make it a warning, just to cover your butt should it all end up at the Admin Noticeboard.

Once your confident of the rules you can proceed to fully fledged Deletions at the Articles for Deletion page. Make sure you vote to keep something every now and again (it doesn't matter what) so you can argue that you're not running a Single Purpose Account should that accusation be thrown around.

Ah, good times. :)

MtD
 
TsarBomba said:
Some nincompoops over at Wikipedia have put the article relating to Skeptoid on a discussion for possible deletion because it is "not notable." Really. Here is the link to the wikipedia discussion.

With the plethora of total crap that one can find on Wikipedia, this seems to be totally amazing.
Click to expand...

[citation needed]

In case you are wondering how this happened, here is the link that brought the Skeptoid article to the attention of the Wikipedia editors.

Essentially, a listener of Dogma Free America (my podcast) was trying like the dickens to get a Wikipedia article for that show. He wrote an entry for the show, but it kept getting deleted. Wikipedia kept saying that the show was "not notable." Apparently Wikipedia has a specific podcast-related rule to keep every teenager with a microphone and computer from getting a wikipedia article about their new podcast. This rule requires that the podcast be mentioned in the mainstream media. When Wikipedia said that Dogma Free America was not notable, the listener pointed out that Skeptoid and The Skeptics Guide were similarly situated, but nobody had ever tagged them for deletion. In what can only be described as a fit of pique, the august editors at Wikipedia did just that, and tagged both for deletion. The discussion for the Skeptic's Guide article seems to be strogly leanding toward keeping it.

Uuugghhh!
Click to expand...

If the podcast has not recived non trivial mentions in say books or the media (does skeptic magazine have anything?) what is wikipedia ment to cite.
 
matty.the.damned said:
Heh. Deletion at Wikipedia, I love that game.

It's got nothing to do with "building a quality encyclopedia" or any of that other crap the Wakipedians go on with. It's basically a tussle between two competing factions, the Inclusionists (boo hiss) and the Deletionists (hooray!!).
Click to expand...

2005 is thataway

I'm an avid Deletionista The more substantial and noteworthy an article that you get deleted, the greater your cred - which is measured in the level of fury expressed by those cream-puff Inclusionists. What's even better is you don't have to go to any real effort by "improving" articles. You just point, click and voila - the article is pretty much gonna be ashcanned.

A good way to start out is by learning the tactics of Speedy Deletion. You get some automatic tools (Twinkle is nice) and tag articles for Speedy Deletion as soon as they appear. Don't pay any attention to the subject or anything like that, just apply an arbitrary criteria, lack of notability is the safest bet.
Click to expand...

A7? nah pretty limited in what you can hit. G11, A1 and A3 give you a wider range. G12 used to be quite popular but you would be amazed at how much advertising rubish people are prepared to release under the GFDL.

It's best to pick on the work of new editors as they have no idea what's going on, write crappy articles and react badly when you tag their work. 95% of the time one of the legion of jaded, lazy Sysops will just see the pink tag and delete the article without a second thought.
Click to expand...

You've never been an admin have you? Doesn't work like that.
 
Smackety said:
Why delete anything?
Click to expand...


Because wikipedia is not a free webhost. Nor is it myspace.

Because the world does not need pages filled with "sdfg sdfg"

Because pages saying "Person X is a moron" are ah problematical.

Because copyvios are problematical

Because generaly wikipedia aims to limit the amount of untrue information on it

Because wikipedia is not a primary source thus things that can't be source cannot be included.

I could continue the list further but well I think that deals with the basic point
 
Last edited:
geni said:
Because wikipedia is not a free webhost. Nor is it myspace.

Because the world does not need pages filled with "sdfg sdfg"

Because pages saying "Person X is a moron" are ah problematical.

Because copyvios are problematical

Because generaly wikipedia aims to limit the amount of untrue information on it

Because wikipedia is not a primary source thus things that can't be source cannot be included.

I could continue the list further but well I think that deals with the basic point
Click to expand...

Geni, is your position that Wikipedia's article on the Skeptoid podcast should actually be deleted? I agree that Wikipedia is not (and should not be) Myspace, but it should serve as a resource for people that hear about something and want to quickly check out what it might be. I think that Skeptoid falls into that category.
 
geni said:
Because wikipedia is not a free webhost. Nor is it myspace.

Because the world does not need pages filled with "sdfg sdfg"

Because pages saying "Person X is a moron" are ah problematical.

Because copyvios are problematical

Because generaly wikipedia aims to limit the amount of untrue information on it

Because wikipedia is not a primary source thus things that can't be source cannot be included.

I could continue the list further but well I think that deals with the basic point
Click to expand...

You make a good point. Clearly if NOTHING was deleted it would just fill up with trash.
 
TsarBomba said:
Geni, is your position that Wikipedia's article on the Skeptoid podcast should actually be deleted?
Click to expand...

Atm no idea. It would take me about 10 min to a reasonably complete search of likely sources of information and I haven't done one yet.

I agree that Wikipedia is not (and should not be) Myspace, but it should serve as a resource for people that hear about something and want to quickly check out what it might be. I think that Skeptoid falls into that category.
Click to expand...

Maybe but is there anyone we can cite to back up our article?
 
Smackety said:
How about they don't delete anything, but move crap into metapedia instead?
Click to expand...

You are free to copy any article listed at AFD as long as you follow the GFDL.

Or you can go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages

and copy stuff like

"psufb14 is a comedy duo of two badass mo fo's that make ballz to the wallz hella funny vidz" (author user:psufb14 hmmm).

Before it gets deleted
 
Last edited:
TsarBomba said:
Totally, but it seems like the general balance on Wikipedia right now is way overboard for deletion.
Click to expand...

Not remotely. Provide a few citations to reliable third party sources and things tend not to get deleted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom