Maury Markowitz wrote:
If Wikipedia were a paper-based encyclopedia, then I think there is no doubt that there would be certain selection criteria. Wikipedia is not paper, and consequently has decided that if it is (a) Verifiable (b) (non-trivial) Reliable sources, (c) written neutrally, then it is acceptable.
I would agree, but in every case your examples failed on (c). The article on Pensée failed to make any sort of effort to describe the magazine _before_ it was radically re-imaged to become a mouthpiece for Velikovsky, and I consider it deletable for that reason alone. Nor did it make any reasonable attempt to describe the fact that the topic is utter rubish, except by including a quote that suggested it was a hissy fit by "mainstream" scientists. Pensée existed before the events described in the article, yet zero effort was made to describe them. This was nothing more than a roundabout promotion for Velikovsky-ism. DELETE!
The article on the Electric Universe so obviously fails (c) that I'm astonished you would even bring it up as an example!
Did I miss a major change in the Wikipedia ethos? Has failing NPOV now become grounds for deleting an article?
If an article *cannot* meet NPOV, that's one thing. But an article that *does not* meet NPOV needs fixing, not deleting.
-Rich Holton w:en:user:rholton