[Wikipedia-l] Non-notability "abuse"

[Ian Tresman]

>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.


I think your bias against Velikovsky is showing 
through here. The post was about notability.

The article made no attempt to describe Pensée 
before the special series, because next no no 
verifiable information could be found. As you 
rightly pointed out, the special series was 
"radically re-imaged", to discuss Velikovsky, and 
had little if any resemblance to the original Pensée student magazine.

If the magazine is a mouthpiece for Velikovsky, 
then that is what we say. But it verifiably 
included articles both pro, and critical of Velikovsky.


>Nor did it make any reasonable attempt to 
>describe the fact that the topic is utter rubbish,

Pensée is not a "topic", it is a magazine. So we 
should be describing whether the magazine was any good.

If you are referring to Velikovsky, then there is 
already an article on him. If you were to read 
Pensée, you will find that there are a number of 
articles by academics supporting your point of 
view (but not so over-generally), and a number of 
article by other academics that disagree.

>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!

How do you know the effort that was put into the 
article on Pensée before the special issue?

>The article on the Electric Universe so 
>obviously fails (c) that I'm astonished you 
>would even bring it up as an example!


I'm glad you agree that it failed on NPOV, and 
not notability, which is the entire point of my post.


>>Likewise, I see no problem Wikipedia summarising
>>every book that was ever published. It already
>>summarised every episode of many obscure TV programmes.
>
>Yes, but lots of people actually watch The 
>Simpsons. Very few read about the Electric Universe.

Compared to the Simpsons, I am sure that very few 
people read the article on Asteroid #576.


>>By point is not to specifically argue for the
>>inclusion of these articles
>
>Oh geez, yes it is. I can conclude this as easy as looking at your sig...
>
>>Ian Tresman
>>www.plasma-universe.com

Sorry, what's the connection with the Plasma 
Universe and Pensée, or with Velikovsky?


>I find it interesting that you don't even seem 
>to argue that these topics are "real', only that 
>they are "verifyable". This is why we don't just accept V.

Like Episode 3 season 2 of the Simpsons is real?

>I can, for instance, verify that the homeless 
>guy on the corner talks to himself, but


You'll note that none of the articles given as 
example rely on you as a source of verification.

Regards,


Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com