4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 629:
Line 629: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 10:21, April 3, 2007
, 10:21, April 3, 2007→delection of article about a Christian missionary
:::# 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.
:::# 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)
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::It looks like an understandable event to me. The content of the WIkipedia article was as follows:
:::James Edwin Orr was a [[Baptist]] minister and author.
:::He was born in [[Belfast]] on [[January 12]] [[1912]] and died in [[Ridgecrest, North Carolina]] on [[April 12]] [[1987]]
:::He was the author of several books and also wrote numerous [[hymns]]
:::It was not deleted because of notability, but because it '''failed to assert notability,''' i.e. gave no reasons why Orr meets the WP:BIO criteria. The article was marked with a notice saying "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with this page’s proposed speedy deletion, please add: <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki>."
:::However, User:Ted-m didn't take any of these actions.
:::The final deletion was made because Ted-m replaced the content of the article with the text <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[J Edwin Orr]]</nowiki> apparently under the impression that this was the same as moving the article, but it isn't. The result was to create a redirect to a nonexistent page--[[J Edwin Orr]] was never created. Redirects to nonexistent pages are legitimate "speedy deletions."
:::If the article had, say: given the titles of Orr's books; and mentioned a single source, such as a print biography, for the facts in the article; or quoted a reasonable published source giving the title of one of Orr's hymns and a comment about its being familiar or beloved or anything like that, I don't think it would have been deleted. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)