Hi-- I wonder if a few experienced folks might be willing to take a look at an article I nominated for deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quackpotwatch
It does not appear to be notable per [[WP:WEB]], and it exists solely as an attack site against a notable website, Quackwatch.com.
My reason for asking here is that I have an article featured on Quackwatch.com (which I have noted for a long time on my user page). I don't want it to seem like my reasons are solely because I disagree with Quackpotwatch. It just doesn't seem notable or reliable regardless of my POV, and I can't find any published sources that cite it. The only citations are other websites that dislike Quackwatch.
Thanks! Jokestress
My reason for asking here is that I have an article featured on Quackwatch.com (which I have noted for a long time on my user page). I don't want it to seem like my reasons are solely because I disagree with Quackpotwatch. It just doesn't seem notable or reliable regardless of my POV, and I can't find any published sources that cite it. The only citations are other websites that dislike Quackwatch.
You should be disclosing this kind of stuff on the actual AfD page, not here. It is relevant to the AfD, and not relevant outside the context of the AfD. Why did you want us (and not the voters) to know?
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:36 PM, A wrote:
Hi-- I wonder if a few experienced folks might be willing to take a look at an article I nominated for deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ Quackpotwatch
It does not appear to be notable per [[WP:WEB]], and it exists solely as an attack site against a notable website, Quackwatch.com.
My reason for asking here is that I have an article featured on Quackwatch.com (which I have noted for a long time on my user page). I don't want it to seem like my reasons are solely because I disagree with Quackpotwatch. It just doesn't seem notable or reliable regardless of my POV, and I can't find any published sources that cite it. The only citations are other websites that dislike Quackwatch.
Thanks! Jokestress
Its notability derives from Quackwatch.
Fred
On 7/20/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Its notability derives from Quackwatch.
Shouldn't it just be mentioned in the main quackwatch article then?
Steve
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Its notability derives from Quackwatch.
Shouldn't it just be mentioned in the main quackwatch article then?
Steve
Is AfD now required to change an article into a redirect?
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Its notability derives from Quackwatch.
Shouldn't it just be mentioned in the main quackwatch article then?
Steve
Is AfD now required to change an article into a redirect?
If you want the redirect to stick it may be a good option.
G'day geni,
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Its notability derives from Quackwatch.
Shouldn't it just be mentioned in the main quackwatch article then?
Is AfD now required to change an article into a redirect?
If you want the redirect to stick it may be a good option.
Funnily enough, there's a case on RfD of the inverse of that --- an article was AfDed, and someone came along later and created a redirect where the article used to be. The redirect is now up before the full panel of RfD, facing charges of ignoring consensus with malice aforethought. One hopes it'll receive a fair trial, but early reports indicate that General Melchitt has already been approached to write the majority opinion.
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is AfD now required to change an article into a redirect?
It's not required, but it's the most common outcome. When you think about it, what is an AfD really there for? We very rarely actually want to replace an article with a redlink. Pretty much "deletion" debates are actually arguing for merging, or replacing by a redirect, both of which could be done without the debate.
Steve