[Wikipedia-l] Non-notability "abuse"

[Rich Holton]

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