Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not Even Wrong

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete carried out by User:Doc glasgow Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not Even Wrong[edit]

blog vanity. POV pushing at the end. Minor claim to notability: his blog is mentioned in a Guardian article. — brighterorange (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alexa: 439,936. --CastAStone 00:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Major POV problems and not notable. If a true "religous" belief held by some, might be expandable into a true article. However, I lack the knowledge of the topic to do this myself. will381796 01:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. NNShelburne Kismaayo 02:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~Vanity (as everyone else has said),~~ and a mess to boot. – Seancdaug 03:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so it's not vanity. I'm still not convinced that it's notable, nor am I sold that Wikipedia is suited to be blog index. So I apologize for misunderstanding the situation, but my vote stands. – Seancdaug 19:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. utcursch | talk 11:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity CLW 12:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First problem I have with this article is that the current incarnation is not an encyclopdic article, it is a blub about the blog and then some random poem. Not a deletable offense, but poorly written. Looking back at the history, it was more POV to start. Again, not a deletable offense... just a bad article. I'm not convinced this is vanity per se as it looks like others edited and added some of the material. It is however an article about a blog. It's not notable in the least and that is deletable in my book. There is no good reason that a blog by a physicist of dubious notability needs it's own wiki entry. It's already listed on his wiki page; no reason to spam wikipedia with more useless blog articles. Delete.--Isotope23 15:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please note Guardian article link was added by me (Nigel Cook), because the article said "YOU CAN HELP BY EXPANDING THIS STUB" or some such. Just trying to help!!! Since I've already been suppressed by Wikipedia on the gravity entry for requesting an update on something of my own, it is just weird if I can't contribute the Guardian newspaper link to this page which was created by Dr Lubos Motl, a string theorist - for proof see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=271 . Therefore, the arguments - all of them - about vanity below look a bit bogus. So many people can't all be wrong? So string theory and the majority must be right? Anyone below feeling a touch paranoid? I don't have more than a few moments access to the edit now and then so haven't had a chance to join wikipedia as a 'User' yet. Best wishes, Nigel. -- unsigned comment by 62.253.48.69 (talk · contribs), whose only edit this is.
- Nigel: This discussion isn't about the guardian link (which actually works in the article's favor, so thank you for adding it), but whether a Wikipedia article about this blog meets the encyclopedia's standards for inclusion. It also isn't about quashing controversy over string theory—we want to provide information from a neutral point of view, which often means reporting multiple perspectives. You'll notice that the article on string theory already contains a large section on the theory's problems and criticisms. If you'd like to expand the discussion, that might be a good place to start. Thanks for trying to help! — brighterorange (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not blog vanity, as it was created by someone (Dr Motl) who is on the other side to the moderator Woit, who has nothing to do with this page. I don't know why my view was deleted, but this entry is essential to establishing an independent index of the blog pages by people excluding Woit. The blog itself is not self-promotion, it includes valuable discussions but these are scattered around and hard to locate on Google, so Wikipedia should have a user-friendly index. The string theory discussions elsewhere are always bogged down with technical trivia, and this is the one blog which distinguishes the wood from the trees. ALL of these 'objections' say 'vanity' which is a lie, unless you think Dr Motl and Dr Woit are one and the same, like Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde! Best wishes, Nigel -- unsigned comment by 80.47.24.202 (talk · contribs), whose third edit this is.
- In regards to your contention that "this entry is essential to establishing an independent index of the blog pages by people excluding Woit", I would argue that the last thing wikipedia needs is articles about people's blogs regardless of what the subject matter is.--Isotope23 20:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No notability established for the blog. Slightly more notability for the meme but not to the point where the claims made for it here can be verified (compare "considered harmful" for a meme which did reach that level.) ~~Delete~~. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Vote changed to Abstain. The evidence presented by Betsy and Kevin is not enough for me to be sure the blog is notable, but enough to be unsure that it's not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, though I agree the un-encyclopedic puffery should go. This blog, despite its provocative title, is not just string-bashing. It's a well-respected source for interesting science bloggery. Its posts often get chosen for Physics Comments, and a Google search for woit blog gives 35,000 results. betsythedevine 20:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of people are worried about this entry being on a Blog. While this is a concern I think we should be willing to include some under very special circumstances. I am a philosophy graduate student and on more than one occasion I have heard a particular philosopher's blog mentioned during a professional talk. In fact a recent paper by a professor at Berkeley was inspired by a comment on said blog. I think this means that blogs are becoming part of academic life, and notable ones are as worthy of an entry here as a book (and probably more worthy). With respect to this case, I count 125 references in at the site provided by betsy [1]. This is a lot. In addition, the guardian article helps. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. It's... Thelb4! 20:16, 5 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.