Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Annalisa Ventola/Sources for parapsychology (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete consensus was that the material on this page did not help build the encyclopedia and was a violation of NOTWEBHOST. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Annalisa Ventola/Sources for parapsychology[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST issue. This is a list of sources an inactive user considers to be "high impact" and "mainstream", but includes Dean Radin's website and other such WP:FRINGE junk. The page appears on my radar because it is the leading source of links to a couple of websites that should never be used as sources, but which regularly creep into articles. I monitor links to these. Linksearch does not filter by namespace, so this page makes that job harder. User's last mainspace edit was in March 2016. So: a list of sources which, if they were used, would be speedily reverted as abject WP:RS failures, maintained by someone whose only recent activity is maintaining this page. Last time out the page was blanked, but the user reverted that, too [1]. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User was advised of the previous MfD and did not participate, but turned up less than a day after the MfD closed to revert my blanking with a snarky edit summary and no actual attempt at communication with me. I didn't feel like pressing the issue since the original MfD was basically non-conclusive, but I'm unimpressed with the user's NOTHERE behavior. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my absence and the cultivation of those sources on your talk page last week, and have not received a response. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't respond because I felt there was little point in continuing the matter. The page was blanked as belonging to an inactive user, you unblanked it, I left it alone, end of my involvement. Where the sources came from is not really relevant to whether or not the page should be kept. If you believe that Guy is hounding you, you should pursue action at ANI. Userpages are still subject to community scrutiny and may be deleted by our processes if that is the consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for information. What does ANI stand for? Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI but also see WP:BOOMERANG. Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every page at Wikipedia has to serve an encyclopedic purpose and doggedly retaining a list of fringe sources violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These sources were created during a wikiathon that took place at a meeting of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science during the Wikipedia Year of Science (https://wikiedu.org/yearofscience/). I took the advice of the moderator at the AAAS meeting to take my idea to the Wikipedia Village Pump where it was a suggested to me to make the resource a user subpage. The links point to pdf's of articles that have appeared in high-impact mainstream journals and it is sorted according to the tenants of WP:RS as a service to wikieditors, which means that it is relevant to the work of Wikipedia and appropriate use of a user page. My wikiHound seems to be taking exception to the fact that some of these pdf's are hosted on Dean Radin's website, but those pdf's were not published by him - they were published by peer-reviewed journals - and that is a crucial difference. This is a good faith effort to help make Wikipedia articles more reliable, in a manner that I have understood to be appropriate for my level of expertise. My heyday in Wikipedia was 10 years ago - before I became employed in the field of parapsychology, which is why I now primarily serve the Wikipedia community in the background. As for not making main space edits since last March, it's is in part because I've been bullied and hounded by the person who is pointing out my lack of main space edits. I hope you can appreciate the irony here. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that hundreds of people would like to use Wikipedia to indefinitely store information they regard as important. WP:NOTWEBHOST is intended to prevent the proliferation of dubious material because its presence can give people the wrong idea about Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia and everything has to actively contribute towards its development. It's fine to have a six-months break, but the page in question has no prospects of contributing as it consists of a list of external links to fringe views that contradict reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information is specifically tailored to Wikipedia editors, and therefore it is exactly where it belongs. I manage several different websites and have no need to be using Wikipedia as a webhost as you suggest. The material that you are calling "dubious" is material published by outfits like Science, Psychological Bulletin, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Lancet, and the British Journal of Psychology - exactly the sort of sources relevant to establishing the notability and context of the material under discussion. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and protect. The page, notes, resources, are relevant to this history of the user's strong participation at Parapsychology and its talk page. However, there are problems, and Annalisa Ventola (talk · contribs)'s attitutude here and evident in the history is not in the interests of the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is there a relevant wikiproject page these could be posted to so they could remain archived for users wishing to use them?Egaoblai (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a terrible idea IMO, these are not usable as sources on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, are they all useless, or just mostly? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every one I have looked at is useless. That's most of them. Dean Radin's website, Frontiers, NeuroQuantology, that sort of thing. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if they are all useless. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not suitable sources generally. Not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 22 December 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.