Talk:RationalWiki

Speedy delete? Not so fast...

Although I did not write this article (or, rather, point it to another article), and really I have nothing at all to do with RationalWiki, I have heard enough about it on the web to think perhaps this article doesn't quite meet CSD. The subject of the article, I think, carries with it enough notability for a suitable article to be written, although I would agree that such an article has not yet been written. At the very least, let's not CSD this thing and set a precedent for an article never to be written on the subject. Perhaps by subjecting this to AfD instead, we may find reason to keep the article. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This speedy request is for speedy deletion of this redirect to the Conservapedia article. I'm sure Rationalwiki gets mentioned on the web in a few blogs and forums, but there is nothing to indicate notability through significant coverage in reliable sources, which Internet forums and blogs are definitely not. Articles have been created on Rationalwiki before and each time they have been deleted as vanity or promo articles on a non-notable subject. This redirect I am requesting speedy deletion of appears to be an attempt to get around the patent non-notability of the subject matter by redirecting to the Conservapedia article, which includes an unwarranted mention of and link to Rationalwiki. Rationalwiki is an attack/stalking site and furthermore is simply not notable. There is no need to allow them to use Wikipedia to promote themselves. 96.239.153.176 (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was that LA Times article I see User:Tmtoulouse mentioned in Talk:Conservapedia. But that alone is insufficient to establish notability. I have no dogs in the hunt here; it wouldn't bother me in the least to see this article get redlinked. I simply want it to be deleted-- or kept-- on clear consensus; one editor's rather vehement objections over another's somewhat questionable actions vis a vis WP:COI do not a consensus make nor break. All I'm saying is let's calm down a bit and take it slow. After all, articles that fail AfD go to the same place as those that "pass" CSD. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, this is a redirect, and as such is not really something that is handled via "speedy delete" or even "article for deletion." The proper place to discus this is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth delete this useful redirect? I have heard of Rationalwiwki; I wonder if Wikipedia tells me anything about it; I look it up; I am redirected to an article on Conservapedia that at least mentions it in passing. That's a whole lot better than a redlink. As a matter of fact, I'd guess that RationalWiki is notable enough for its own article. Trying to get the current redirect version deleted smacks of extreme prejudice and POV-pushing! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

While I wouldn't argue about RationalWiki's notability :), the problem is what it has been for some time, there aren't enough wp:reliable sources to write an article. The only wp:rs sources that are out there are the LA Times article, and an article in the Guardian. Everything else is blogs, forums, and self published material. If a few more secondary reliable sources pick up on RationalWiki I think there is enough for an article but that hasn't happened yet. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't argue that, Tmtoulouse. Still, the speedy delete request was made, and I'm simply throwing a {{hangon}} to keep the redirect from disappearing without any kind of discussion to ascertain consensus. Maybe someone would like to kick this over to WP:RFD, but that someone won't be me as I have no real proposal for the redirect/article at this time. -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The speedy has all ready been removed, and the recommendation made to move this to RFD if someone wants to press the issue. The only one that seems to want to is the IP address that was doing a jihad on any mention of RW on Wikipedia. For the time being they seem to have dispersed to greener pastures. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. I say we leave well enough alone, and move on to other, more pressing matters elsewhere. If someone does want to press the issue, though, I've heard enough here to cast a vote to keep on any RfD. -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Owner

Peter Lipson is not the owner of the site, the site really doesn't have an owner. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed.--ParisianBlade (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Reset to redirect to conservapedia article

That is what should happen to this article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a redirect until a few days ago when a Conservapedia user expanded the article without consensus to contain a very biased wording. I've reworded it to remove the bias and proposed it for deletion.--ParisianBlade (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll boldly change it to a redirect again; that seems to be the long-standing consensus. I don't think there are many (if any) sources that talk about RW outside the context of Conservapedia. It could be argued that RW is only notable in its relationship with CP. Fishal (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RW Is Its Own Thing

It should not redirect to the entry on CP at all. You can mention the relationship between RW and CP in both of their respective entries, but do not redirect this to the CP entry. The proponents of this silly idea are not fooling anyone. You can't talk about RW on CP (i know because I am active on CP as well) so you come here and do some reverse vandalism. There is no good reason to completely redirect RW to CP, at all. Jersey John (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition, Tmt I'm surprised you're advocating this seeing how by your user page you say you are a part of RW. Do you REALLY want the RW entry to redirect to CP? Don't you see the inherent danger in that? Jersey John (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to let this die. I WILL revert any redirect to the CP entry. Jersey John (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see an article on RW, when a proper article could be written, an article that fits with in wikipedia policy. At the moment that is impossible because of the standards of sourcing needed for an article on wikipedia and for statements about the subject of an article. There are some substantial factual errors in this article, and that has to do with the fact that the only source is a few paragraphs from one article. If there were more sources it would be easier to tell the true story. The fact that there is a single source also violates wikipedia policy for article inclusion. But I try to be very "light handed" with my actions on RW related stuff on this site because of my inherent COI. When the true story of RW can be told that is when an article should be created. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the creation for an independent page for 'Rational' wiki, as Rationalwiki is a completely separate website from Conservapedia, not to mention the fact that Rationalwiki endorses vandalism of our site (Conservapedia) --Philip Venson (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)