4 ms·

Seriously, Wikipedia? You deleted Fravia's page for a lack of notability?

by brl 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago
They didn't delete the page; they replaced it with (an inauspicious) redirect to "Reverse Engineering". The discussion that led to this is here: http://bit.ly/10rqEV http://bit.ly/10rqEV. I can understand they logic behind this article being put up for AfD. It was written poorly, in POV style. It did do a poor job of establishing what was notable about Fravia (you'd have to know something about his particular reversing subculture to know why any of the claims in the article were interesting). And finally --- and most importantly --- the article did lack independent sources establishing notability. Independent sourcing is not optional on Wikipedia. I don't think this is a place where the system failed.
- huhtenberg 17y ago
  Poorly sourced article tagged for POV bias is better than no article. Especially considering how much effort it takes to resurrect the article once it's deleted.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    That argument is a slippery slope towards asserting there should be no quality control on Wikipedia; any debatable WP article could be defended by saying "tag it and hope for sourcing". What people keep forgetting in these arguments is that WP isn't pronouncing a final judgement on the topic; they're judging the article itself. If you believe sourcing could be found for a topic, and a better article could be written, go write it. There's a zillion "proven" articles in WP that need maintaining; why argue about the ones people can't bother to bring up to some minimal standard of quality?
huhtenberg 17y ago
> Seriously, Wikipedia? Yeah, that's a modern Wikipedia for you. Hardly a surprise, really. The only thing that's strictly notable according to their policies is a Pokemon. With a list of Starwars planets coming next. I used to contribute a lot for more than two years, but then left after a wave of morons overtook reasonable editors and started purging articles left and right just for the sake of complying with the Policies. I have stopped donating too. /rant

Seriously, Wikipedia? You deleted Fravia's page for a lack of notability?

by brl 17y ago

Seriously, Wikipedia? You deleted Fravia's page for a lack of notability?

They didn't delete the page; they replaced it with (an inauspicious) redirect to "Reverse Engineering". The discussion that led to this is here: http://bit.ly/10rqEV http://bit.ly/10rqEV. I can understand they logic behind this article being put up for AfD. It was written poorly, in POV style. It did do a poor job of establishing what was notable about Fravia (you'd have to know something about his particular reversing subculture to know why any of the claims in the article were interesting). And finally --- and most importantly --- the article did lack independent sources establishing notability. Independent sourcing is not optional on Wikipedia. I don't think this is a place where the system failed.

huhtenberg 17y ago
Poorly sourced article tagged for POV bias is better than no article. Especially considering how much effort it takes to resurrect the article once it's deleted.
- tptacek 17y ago
  That argument is a slippery slope towards asserting there should be no quality control on Wikipedia; any debatable WP article could be defended by saying "tag it and hope for sourcing". What people keep forgetting in these arguments is that WP isn't pronouncing a final judgement on the topic; they're judging the article itself. If you believe sourcing could be found for a topic, and a better article could be written, go write it. There's a zillion "proven" articles in WP that need maintaining; why argue about the ones people can't bother to bring up to some minimal standard of quality?

huhtenberg 17y ago

> Seriously, Wikipedia? Yeah, that's a modern Wikipedia for you. Hardly a surprise, really. The only thing that's strictly notable according to their policies is a Pokemon. With a list of Starwars planets coming next. I used to contribute a lot for more than two years, but then left after a wave of morons overtook reasonable editors and started purging articles left and right just for the sake of complying with the Policies. I have stopped donating too. /rant