Conservapedia:AFD Grok

From Conservapedia

Grok

Descision

Keep but possible future merge

Debate

Delete and Merge: should be in a page about the book, or the author. --TimSvendsen 13:12, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, one of my complaints about Wikipedia is how someone will quickly deface a new entry with a "Notice of Proposed Deletion." That's exactly what happened to the conservapedia entry on Wikipedia. Often this form of censorship reflects bias of someone about what is important to him. He may think one entry is silly, but that the outcome of the Super Bowl is important. Others don't share that view.

Regardless, what's the rush, and why these censorship notices? A simple note at the end of an entry with a link to discussion would be far more desirable.

There is no reason for speedy deletion of something that complies with our rules. Later entries can be merged to the extent desired.--Aschlafly 14:09, 16 February 2007 (EST)

I happen to disagree with both of you--

Keep the article; if I gather correctly, the word is more important than the book.

Putting an article up for deletion does not is not censorship in any form; it merely invites discussion on the validity of the article and an informed decision on whether to keep it. The bias of the individual who put the article up for deletion will be easily overruled by others. Furthermore, we should keep the delete notice on the top of the page-- not to deface the article but to further invite attention to the discussion about whether to delete it. We will not get nearly as much feedback if we hide the delete notice at the end of the entry. --BenjaminS 15:08, 16 February 2007 (EST)

• Comment Those familiar with Wikipedia should not assume that Wikipedian customs are necessarily appropriate here... or that the appropriate balance between inclusion and deletion is necessarily the same for a project with a million articles and project with a few thousand. Those less familiar with Wikipedia should be open to the possibility that a project that aspires to be somewhat similar to Wikipedia might find Wikipedian customs somewhat appropriate, and that some of Wikipedia's characteristics are the necessary consequences of open Wiki projects. Dpbsmith 11:00, 17 February 2007 (EST)

REPLY Dpbsmith's points are well taken. We reject many of Wikipedia's customs here. One custom that we reject is the practice of defacing an entry with an ugly notice of proposed deletion right at the top. This discourages improvements on entry and tends to discredit it, unjustifiably so. There is no reason such notice should be so overbearing. People should not be hit with it before reading the entry, but only afterwards. Many of Wikipedia's entry are similarly defaced, and it greatly detracts from its attractiveness and credibility. I don't want that here and doubt a majority of the other contributors here want that either.--Aschlafly 12:05, 17 February 2007 (EST)

When you say that "we" reject the custom of a delete notice on the top of an article who are you speaking for, is that a royal we? I don't think that anyone else had a problem with it. Personally I like having it on the top-- it attracts more attention to the article. If we are going to have an article up for deletion we should have the notice on the top of the page to further encourage feedback on the issue. --BenjaminS 20:03, 18 February 2007 (EST)

P.S. Don't quote "a majority of contributors" based upon your own speculation.

If We do not want to become just the same as wikipedia we have to limit what articles/Info we keep. I am not saying that it is absolutely necessary to delete this one, I just think it should be moved. --TimSvendsen 17:34, 17 February 2007 (EST)

I'm fine with some sensible limits. But I'd prefer the biblical test: might this bear fruit in the future, even in unexpected ways? Tab positions on the guitar for Beatles tunes seemed to be dead end. Grok does not. It opens the door to other entries on language, science fiction, history and culture. Our test should be one that maximizes the opportunities for growth here.

By the way, it's good to have some fun entries. That should be reflected in any test for deletion.--Aschlafly 17:47, 17 February 2007 (EST)

There are fun entries for every user. it is called their user:talk page. --TimSvendsen 19:02, 18 February 2007 (EST)

i found this article to be quite interesting and informative: I say Keep.

--BenjaminS 20:04, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Keep: Even though this word sounds like it spurred the first Star Trek convention, I think it is historically and culturally relevent. --David R 23:16, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I say Keep R.A. Heinlein is one of the most important science fiction writers in history, and one of the most vocal and important proponents of true libertarianism in the past century, I dare say that it is through his works of fiction that many people came to libertarianism (I know that’s how I first came to learn about it.) “grock” may not be one of his greatest contributions to our culture, but it is one of his contributions to our society and I say the more that people can learn about his works the better off we are all going to be. --Reginod 16:39, 7 March 2007 (EST)

KEEP Strictly speaking the word while Martian was not by a Martian but by a human being who had been raised by Martians. The book stands in the line of Heinlein's Red Planet and I think the article should be kept but perhaps edited a little to make it clearer and more precise. Heinlein stood for strong character and rugged Yankee ingenuity. He was a Naval Academy graduate and retired early due to illness. He returned to service during WWII at the Philadelphia Naval Yard where he worked on innovative concepts to win the war. I think the article is appropriate. GROK is an important word and politically and philosophically neutral. It simply means a very deep understanding of something. It was picked up and used by the flower children of the Vietnam era who raised Heinlein's book "Stranger in a Strange Land" to cult status. -- Ray Schneider March 10, 2007 EST

Keep, but consider future merges. This might fit better in a Popular neologisms of fiction or the like, for example. Grok is an important word for many reasons, and is one of the most obvious contributions of the genre to the language, but I'm not convinced it deserves an article of its own. Such an article is probably prone to inflating the importance of the word, where a general discussion of fictional words that have become widely used could retain context and scope more easily.

That said, I want to react to the conversations above. Wikipedia is successful, so it's tempting to model Conservapedia on "what we are not that Wikipedia is." This is a trap. Conservapedia should be an encyclopedia modeled on the sensibilities of a set of editors who happen to think that Wikipedia is either not the correct model, or not the only valid model. If we do this, then we will be able to establish our own identity, and not always be trapped in the shadow of that other site. -Harmil 16:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would word it rather, who think that Wikipedia, has much to teach us, and we should adopt those of its practices that are good, alter those that need it, and develop our own to suit our identity. Those who started Wikipedia might well do some things differently if they had the ability to start over. While we here are young and flexible, we should take advantage of the opportunity for growth. We should also be wise enough to know that we need not develop everything from scratch, and not be too proud to recognize that we can benefit from the experiences of others. One of the experiences we can learn from, is the inadvisability of setting too much as inflexible law at the very start. Perhaps they will even be able to learn from our experiences. DDG 23:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)