nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 613:
Line 613: − + Line 624:
Line 624: + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 10:18, April 3, 2007
, 10:18, April 3, 2007→delection of article about a Christian missionary: On Orr
:: NickJ10, I'm going to archive this page. I do respond to sincere comments and criticisms. If you have one, then I'd be happy to respond. If you respond before I archive this page, then I'll keep your question, if it's sincere. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:: NickJ10, I'm going to archive this page. I do respond to sincere comments and criticisms. If you have one, then I'd be happy to respond. If you respond before I archive this page, then I'll keep your question, if it's sincere. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
== delection of article about a Christian missionary ==
== Deletion of article about a Christian missionary ==
several months ago wikipedia deleted an article I created about the famous Christian missionary, author, and hymn writer, [[J. Edwin Orr]]. Their reason, "non notable" despite a google search yielding over 12,000 results. Wikipedia has articles about far less notable people in secular positions some of whom have google search results of less than 900 --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 22:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
several months ago wikipedia deleted an article I created about the famous Christian missionary, author, and hymn writer, [[J. Edwin Orr]]. Their reason, "non notable" despite a google search yielding over 12,000 results. Wikipedia has articles about far less notable people in secular positions some of whom have google search results of less than 900 --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 22:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::3) Wikipedia's criteria for notability of people, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO WP:BIO] is not based on the number of Google hits. I'd like TedM to point me to the relevant deletion discussion and indicate how J. Edwin Orr meets WP:BIO. Really, by far the most important criterion is the availability of good sources. If J. Edwin Orr meets the criteria in WP:BIO, and if the article when created cited sources and indicated why Orr is notable, it should not have been deleted and I'd be glad to propose it for deletion review. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::3) Wikipedia's criteria for notability of people, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO WP:BIO] is not based on the number of Google hits. I'd like TedM to point me to the relevant deletion discussion and indicate how J. Edwin Orr meets WP:BIO. Really, by far the most important criterion is the availability of good sources. If J. Edwin Orr meets the criteria in WP:BIO, and if the article when created cited sources and indicated why Orr is notable, it should not have been deleted and I'd be glad to propose it for deletion review. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::# I know of one, although the name is not coming to me at the moment.
:::# Not necessarily. The criticism is not that Wikipedia doesn't have such an article, but that they deleted one. Conservapedia has not deleted or refused to have one on Orr, so the same criticism doesn't apply. For what it's worth, I'd definitely agree that Orr is worthy of an article.
:::# I've just looked for the deletion discussion, and there wouldn't have been one, because it was listed for ''speedy'' deletion, in which no such discussion takes place. I understand what you are getting at, that Wikipedia deleted it simply because it didn't meet its criteria. I guess the other side of the coin is (1) that the liberal leanings of a disproportionate number of Wikipedia editors meant that few had any personal idea of how notable he was, to either allow time for notability to be demonstrated, or for others to help with meeting the requirements, and (2) Wikipedia's insistence on reliable sources tends to exclude people who ''are'' "notable" (in reality, not necessarily in Wikipedia's definition), but who have not had much written about them in mainstream ("reliable") sources.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)