Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RationalWiki (3rd nomination)

Add links
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 was no consensus. It seems like the key argument boils down between those who argue that the sources posted by VQuakr are adequate and those who argue against. In cases where canvassing/offsite discussion are an issue, I am generally inclined to pay less attention to headcounts as these are the most easily distorted ones. There are also many people writing vague rationales - when we argue about a website being notable or not, we need sources and a discussion of what makes these sources satisfy WP:SIGCOV - here. But either way there is no consensus for deletion here, perhaps leaning towards outright "keep" actually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RationalWiki

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

RationalWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wrote a very lengthy review that took quite a bit of time to write up and have added above. "Fails GNG was merely placeholder text. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I struck my previous !vote and will add one at the bottom of the discussion. VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': This is my rather lengthy review and rationale for deletion. I did not expect people to comment on this within the first ten minutes, and it took me a little longer to write than expected.

Third time's the charm. ;)

The main issue is that it fails WP:GNG, and lacks significant independent third party reliable source coverage.

Let's review the sources for the article. The article has been tagged since Oct 2018 for over-reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources. Indeed, 9 out of the 18 sources used in the article are sourced to Rational Wiki themselves. The fact the article has to rely so heavily on primary sources should be a clue to its notability. Let's examine the other sources:

  • Simon, Stephanie (June 22, 2007). "A conservative's answer to Wikipedia". Los Angeles Times.
  • Haines, Lester (June 20, 2007). "Need hard facts? Try Conservapedia". The Register.

These are sources about Conservapedia, and merely make a trivial mention of Rationalwiki. Indeed, this is the pattern we'll see, that third party sources make small references or quote from Rational Wiki, but none of them cover Rational Wiki in depth or make it the focus of the article.

  • Keeler, Mary; Johnson, Josh; Majumdar, Arun. "Crowdsourced Knowledge: Peril and Promise for Complex Knowledge Systems" (PDF).

Another trivial mention. It spends one sentence discussing RW, then quotes their mission statement. Then it discusses Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit which is listed on the site.

  • Ballatore, Andrea. "Google chemtrails: A methodology to analyze topic representation in search engine results". 20.7 (2015). First Monday.

Two sentences focusing on RW out of the entire study, which simply lists the results found. Trivial reference.

  • Smith, Jonathan C. Critical Thinking: Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. John Wiley & Sons, 2017, pp 77. 9781119029489

I don't have access to this book, but the article cites it just once and says the source "lists" RW, which leads me to believe this is another trivial reference. Likely a list of good online sources to check out.

  • Shvets, Alexander (October 2, 2014). Filev, D.; Jabłkowski, J.; Kacprzyk, J.; et al. (eds.). Intelligent Systems'2014: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference Intelligent Systems IS’2014, September 24–26, 2014, Warsaw, Poland, Volume 2: Tools, Architectures, Systems, Applications. Series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 323. Springer Publishing. A Method of Automatic Detection of Pseudoscientific Publications, page 533 et seq. ISBN 978-3-319-11310-4.

Another source I don't have access to, but it seems to be transcripts from some kind of conference where someone listed RW briefly as a good online source. Looks to be another trivial mention.

  • Brojakowski, Benjamin (August 2017). "Digital Whiteness Imperialism: Redefining Caucasian Identity Post-Boston Bombing". Bowling Green State University (dissertation).

Pretty sure dissertations are not classified as RS. And in any case, it's another trivial mention.

  • Murphy, Paul (November 19, 2014). "American Thinker is a Wingnut Publication"

This is the first source so far that's a third party source actually discussing RW directly. However, I'm not sure if American Thinker is a RS, and it does look to be an opinion piece where the author complains about something RW said about American Thinker.

  • Selgin, George (June 4, 2015). "Ten Things Every Economist Should Know about the Gold Standard".

Blog post by the CATO institute complaining about something RW said.

  • Einspruch, Franklin (September 6, 2016). "Cultural Marxists Are Actually Pomofascists". The Federalist.

Another opinion piece whining about something RW said.

And that is it for sources used for the page. If you were to trim all the Primary sources, and just used third party, I'm certain you'd be left with a WP:PERMASTUB.

Now, what about sources that aren't listed on the page? The pattern of trivial mentions continue. I will post some examples below:

A post by an Alabama news site that merely mentions RW in one sentence.

An opinion piece in The Guardian which again, makes about one sentence reference to the site.

Lastly, I will review the previous AFD discussion. The Keep votes were largely not based on WP policy, and at two users have major COI. Two of the Four votes to keep were from RW mods. The main issue of third party reliable sources to prove GNG was simply not discussed.

Let's review the keep votes:

First vote for stated that it's clear it's notable and cited Snopes coverage. However, the snopes pages simply quote from RW. That's not in depth coverage. Example

Second vote stated that the mentions are trivial, but there's a high number of them, which denotes notability. This keep vote is not based on WP policy at all. The mentions are trivial, and it doesn't matter how many trivial mentions you have, you need a significant of reliable sources that cover the topic in depth.

Third vote stated that RW is well known among the atheist/skeptic community, and reading about it would be of interest for those looking up information about those movements. However, the atheist/skeptic community is a niche group, and something can be notable among them, but fail GNG on Wikipedia. And stating that the site is of value is a subjective statement. Only thing that matters is third party coverage.

Last vote implied that because Conservapedia has an article, RW should get one too. This is not based on WP policy. The vote ended by citing a previous deletion vote

Conclusion: The previous debate should have at the very least been re-listed to draw greater comments. Half the keep votes were from RW mods, and none of the keep votes were based on policy. And given the lack of in depth significant coverage, this article fails WP:GNG. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... is that a good redirect? RW is a well known critic of Conservapedia, but they're distinct organizations with polar opposite goals and strategies. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While that's true, RationalWiki was created as a direct response to Conservapedia, which is my reasoning. That being said, I think a redirect would need a RfC, and I'm not sure if the majority would agree with me. It just seems too notable to delete, but not notable enough to warrant it's own article. Nanophosis (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a single proper in-depth source that I can find. Just endless trivial references. No one wants to talk about the history, founding, etc of the site. So it doesn't pass notability. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot of primary sources, which are not good sources. It only has an endless stream of trivial references in other media. Can you find a single source that actually talks about RW rather than just say it exists? Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Neutral due to a WP:COI, but my vote would be is delete. Most of the non-primary sources, except American Thinker, do not constitute significant coverage as the works are covering other topics and Rational-Wiki just kind of falls into the mix. As a note to the closing clerk, check voters for any affiliation with Rational-Wiki or Conservapedia as these people come out of the woodwork whenever a major discussion (like an AfD) related to either site pops up. I am involved at both sites. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 19:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Read WP:WEBCRIT. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." RW fails that, hands down. I'm going to go ahead and make this a vote because undoubtedly other people with strong opinions will also vote on this. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 19:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the last AFD was a total farce. Two of the four votes were RW Mods, and another one was a significant contributor to the site. So we have 3 RW members who made a "consensus" to keep the page. In other words, RW users decided to keep the page, not Wikipedia users. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep adequate coverage already demonstrated in the article to meet WP:GNG. Specifically, the American Thinker, LA Times, and The Register sources contain significant coverage which cumulatively meets the guideline. As a reminder: significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. LA Times and The Register both are well beyond trivial mentions, and the American Thinker piece is specifically about Rationalwiki. The nominator has concerns about American Thinker's reliability and the fact that it is an opinion piece, but the former isn't an issue (in the context of a notability assessment American Thinker is fine reliability-wise) and the latter is irrelevant.
The nominator also cites the essay WP:PERMASTUB, but that essay doesn't say what the nominator implies it does: that essay notes that Finished permastubs are perfectly acceptable. We don't need secondary sourcing on "the history, founding, etc of the site" in order to keep such non-contentious content, as noted at WP:PRIMARY. VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First off I will point out that I am no longer a member of RationalWiki. I apologize for using a WP:SPA account here, to avoid serious harassment from their members. There are mentions of RationalWiki from many sources pointing to the sites hypocrisy, and, the site itself has a page to collect complaints from the organisations and people they defame. RationalWiki is run by SJWs [1] and has superseded it's roots as a Conservapedia mockery by encouraging people to write hit pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaFlights (talk • contribs) 11:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously passes notability. Benjamin (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These people begging for deletion are banned by the way, AlphaFlights is Mikemikev, and it obviously passes notability as Ben says. I`m Oxyaena on that wiki. Mr.23 (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of the posting of this reply, the claim about deletion voters all being banned is a lie. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 19:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Update: Since I posted that, a moderator has blocked my account there with a nonsense reason. Franky, I don't appreciate people discussing my affairs there in the first place per WP:OUTING, beyond mere acknowledgement that I am registered there and I do not want any further conversation about the matter here on Wikipedia, but I'm just going to say that was very immature and a good taste of the mentality of administration there. Alas, that has nothing to do with whether the site is notablre or not. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mostly per VQuakr. There's adequate coverage, and the topic clearly meets GNG. It would also be thoughtless of me not to thank PCHS-NJROTC for giving me my best quiet, wry smile of the week so far by "com[ing] out of the woodwork" to warn unwary, aspiring closers of the potential for "these people" ("voters [with] affiliation with Rational-Wiki or Conservapedia") to "come out of the woodwork". Priceless. -- Begoon 12:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Redirect to Conservapedia#RationalWiki per nom's thorough WP:BEFORE, WP:WEBCRIT and WP:INHERITWEB. I also did an independent search for sources, and was actually really surprised that I didn't find anything meaty. The American Thinker piece is the best, but it's a blog post responding to a provocation. In the LA Times and Register pieces, it's a footnote in articles that are really about Conservipedia. They're also really only one source, since Register article is mostly quoting and summarizing the LA Times with an extra layer of its characteristic snark. The rest are blog posts and articles that just mention it briefly -- almost as if were just something random that popped up on a web search (which exactly how I'm aware of it). I don't think it meets the threshold for a standalone article. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For those saying the site "Obviously passes notability" or that it has "adequate coverage". First, nothing is obvious. Second, why is the page so heavily reliant on Primary sources? Why? If the page is notable with huge amount of coverage, this should be easy to fix. Why hasn't anyone fixed it?
Where are these sources? I cannot find a single article anywhere, that actually covers the site directly. The best we have is fairly brief mentions, in two articles, one by the LA Times, and another by The Register. That's it. They discuss Conservapedia, and then briefly mention that there's another site. That is two brief mentions in two articles, that is NOT significant in-depth coverage to warrant at WP article. It's a start, but you'll way more than that. I'm sorry, but the sourcing is deeply inadaquate.
For the rest, these are just blog posts of people complaining about RW's coverage. These aren't news pieces, but blog posts and opinion pieces.
Let's look at something like Super Play or Total!. These magazines may ultimately not be notable, but through research I've found that Nintendo Life has done three page features on both magazines.1 2 That's what is meant by in-depth. Where is the equivalent for RW? For a site that's supposedly "obviously" notable, no one seems to want to talk about it or do profiles on it.
Many pages that aren't notable follow a format of WP:REFBOMBING, where primary sources are used to build the article, and then a series of trivial or minor references are used to pad the article out. That way it looks at first glance to have a lot of sources, but that's just an illusion. RW's page fits that format. Most of the page's refs (like half) are primary, and then the rest are just trivial or brief mentions. When it comes down to it, there's only two actual articles that are RS news coverage that mention the site, and that is simply not enough. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Though we should try to assume Good Faith, we also should be aware of that issue. The last AFD for this page, a "consensus" was reached where 3 out of the 4 votes to keep were RW users. Two of them were even mods. It's possible that again, keep votes from RW users can distort the discussion. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry too much if I were you, there doesn't seem much danger of your views being drowned out. You've contributed over 50% of the text here so far, and made over 25% of the posts. Have you ever read this? Between you and PCHS-NJROTC, c. 70% of the text and c. 50% of the posts.[2] AfD closers generally aren't so naive that the 'SPA' drum needs banging quite so hard, in my experience. -- Begoon 08:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been an editor at wikipedia for a lot longer and I am quite familiar with the policies of wikipedia, how they work and I deeply respect them. That includes making unpopular edits based on policy, not "just because I feel that way" because these policies help keep thousands of editors contributing well to an incredible project. As you can see, most people here have quoted policy with good reasons for supporting their keep or delete comment or quoted someone else's arguments. Best to focus on the quality of the arguments made and how convincing or supported they are, not the number of votes or speculative ulterior motives. Consensus is reached based on arguments users give based on policy, not a keep vs. delete vote. Mine was based on policy, not ulterior motives. One of the pillars of wikipedia is to show good faith. It is not a trite cliché policy but fundamental to keeping this project civil and resolving sticky disagreements. Shabidoo | Talk 11:45, 12 May 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RationalWiki_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=896767992"