The Wikipedia Deletionists, Round 2

Remember the Deletionists? The ones who go around targeting random Wikipedia entries and declare that the subjects of those pages aren’t important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia? They targeted actor Kristian Ayre, declaring that she wasn’t notable because she’d only been a supporting cast member of a TV series (“Space Cases”) that had run only one season, and had no other roles of note. This despite the fact that Kristian has in fact starred in a number of films and TV shows, and “Space Cases” ran two seasons, not one, that Kristian was a co-star and not a supporting cast member, and by the way, Kristian’s a guy.

According to author Kevin J. Anderson, they’re at it again, and their accuracy rate has only gotten worse. Kevin reported:

“In my work compiling the 25-year retrospective book for Writers of the
Future, I’ve been doing spotlights on some of the past author winners who
have gone on to publish multiple novels. One of those is Rod Garcia, who
writes as R. Garcia y Robertson. Rod was a familiar figure at west coast SF
conventions in the 1990s, published several novels from Avon and Tor, but
pretty much disappeared after about 2006. He doesn’t have email, as far as
I know.

“When gathering some basic information about him, I went to his Wikipedia
entry only to find the odd notation that his entry is being considered for
deletion because someone named “Deb” says there is “No evidence of
notability. All books appear to be self-published through a variety of
companies such as Avon Books.”

“Someone else pointed out that Avon was not a vanity publisher and that Rod
had also been published by Tor Books. Deb disagreed, said that the Avon
that had published Rod was not the Avon that is an imprint of Harpercollins
and she also has some problem believing in Tor books too. Well, that was
weird, so I posted that, no, Avon was really the professional Avon; I named
Rod’s editor at Avon (Chris Miller) and his editor at Tor (Dave Hartwell),
and cited a Kirkus review for his first novel. Because I don’t have any
intention of getting an account and getting further involved in Wiki
discussions, my name was not identified.

“Deb disagreed again, still insists that Avon was a vanity press, and
apparently is still pushing to get Rod’s listing removed.

“Sigh. This is like a trip into Bizarro-land. I don’t know who this person
is, but it’s disturbing that one very ill-informed woman (whatever her
agenda is) can get the entry for a well-respected, if inactive, multiply
published author simply deleted from Wikipedia. Rod certainly isn’t
looking at his entry.”

It’s interesting to learn, as a result of Kevin’s recounting, that Kristian’s page wasn’t the only one targeted for deletion on the basis of random misinformation. If you ever want to get an up-close-and-personal feel for what the Mad Tea Party is like, go watch the Deletionists in action. They’re like the Cybermen but less cuddly.

PAD

142 comments on “The Wikipedia Deletionists, Round 2

  1. Some time ago, they wanted to delete Steve Kenson, creator of Mutants and Masterminds, the most popular superhero RPG being published nowadays (and translated and published in multiple countries, even).

  2. Huh. I thought Wikipedia’s purpose was the collecting of information from all interested sources, with the goal being accurate, well-documented entries. I didn’t know “importance” was key.

    Heck, I’ve got this old container with a plastic and metal know on top of it filled with blue crystals. You unscrew the know, heat it in the oven, and it absorbs moisture, keeping the contents from getting stale. It says it’s called a “Dri-Nob”. If I knew a little more, I’d add info to Wikipedia on it. Since I can’t find anything about it on the internet, it’d be hard to say it was important – but the information would be of interest to someone.

    1. The criteria is “notability” or “notworthiness”, and its purpose is to prevent editors from creating articles on just anyone.

      1. And in many ways, “notability” is taken by Wikipedians to mean “This person/information can be found on the Internet.” Someone like Rod Garcia, who doesn’t have a ‘net presence, would fail the notability test, as information outside the Internet is taken to not exist at all.

      2. If they take it to mean that, then they’re incorrect. It merely means that the topic has been covered in some number of sources, independent of the topic, that are considered to be reliable authorities in the relevant field.

    1. It also seems “Deb” is the kind of person that won’t let facts get in the way of his/her/hir opinion.

      1. It amazes me how often people start with theories and then create facts to support them.

  3. This is very depressing. Most of the people I look up on wikipedia are the random names that I hear of once in an odd context and know absolutely nothing about them. It would seem more useful to continue keeping those interesting/obscure individuals than some of the extensiveness they go into for other entries.

  4. I know everybody says that Wikipedia should be a site you visit, and then follow through on the links, but I still find it a wonderful resource, regardless.
    .
    The notion of ‘importance’ is a personal thing. And while I wouldn’t care to see a Wikipedia entry on Joe the Bum Sleeping Under the Overpass, a page on a professional writer – active or otherwise – certainly doesn’t hurt anybody. Otherwise, it would be easy for somebody to claim that 99% of the pages on Wikipedia should be deleted because they’re unimportant.
    .
    A wonderful quote from the Ostatic blog: “While (Wikipedia) certainly provides a valuable resource, some portion of its community is ensuring that it is not as valuable as it could be.”

    1. Agreed on the idea of importance (or “notability”, as it’s called at Wikipedia).
      .
      I found it interesting that, if one looks at “Deb’s” User talk page on Wikipedia, one finds, both on the main page and the archives, a recurring theme of other users asking Deb, “Why did you delete my article?” or “Why did you nominate my article for deletion?”. Apparently, Deb believes herself to be an authority on the “notability” of many topics, not just science fiction writers.
      .
      Chuck

      1. I suspect that Deb is one of those sad little creatures who, unable to earn the significance she no doubt believes she deserves, gets revenge on the world by trying to deny others the recognition they have earned. ie, one of my least favorite kinds of people.
        .
        And while I realize that life is not like a Ðìçk Tracy comic strip. I note that often those folks look exactly like you think they would, as though the bitterness that consumes them has left them with a permanent scowl. Just dreadful people all around.
        .
        Wikipedia should have someone whose only job is to look into these sorts of things and make the needed adjustment (which is to say, telling deb her services are no longer needed).

    2. Notability is not “personal”. It is an attempt to apply objective criteria in deciding who should have an article. Depending on the subject area, the criteria for people is that they be covered in some number of publications relevant to their field that are considered reliable by that field, and are independent of that person. Hardly personal.

      1. In this case is IS personal. It’s one person deciding – with incorrect facts – that somebody is not notable, and therefore the article should be deleted.
        .
        This person, “Deb”, has decided they are the ones who should be notable by their desire to be exclusionary.
        .
        It’s a freaking website with (basically) limitless storage behind it. There is no reason not to be inclusive… unless you’re a deletionist.

      2. I see what you’re saying, Craig. I think what Luigi is saying is that the idea of and the practice of maintaining notability, in general, is not personal.
        .
        It’s like saying that refereeing a basketball game is not personal. We all know that referees are human and their personal feelings can affect a call. However, the idea behind having a ref is sound. When it is done properly the rules are clearly laid out and applied to everyone fairly.
        .
        The problem in this case is the actions of one specific referee, Deb. Notability isn’t supposed to be personal, as Luigi says, but there was clearly bad judgement in this case. So I think the big question is, can notability be defined well enough so that we can clearly see when an editor’s judgement is fair?

    3. I’ve always called it “a good first step” — as in, the information presented may or may not be accurate, depending upon the lack of agenda or lack of (lack of agenda) of the person posting that information, and at least good for personal trivia notes. If I were writing a report about that subject, I’d follow the footnotes, and probably seek other sources as well.

      Wildcat

  5. Wicked-Pedia is nigh useless.
    .
    Until they get some professional editors, they will be constantly subject to inaccurate information, half-truths, and blatant lies.
    .
    Trusting in Wicked-Pedia’s accuracy is like trusting in the Teabaggers.

    1. While I don’t disagree with your assessment, Alan, I just want to issue a friendly warning to all the usual suspects that if this thread goes off track into an irrelevant political discussion, I will not smile approvingly on it.
      .
      PAD

    2. Wikipedia has never been useless for me and I’ve found it to be very accurate.
      .
      Perhaps that’s because of what I use it for. When I want to find out the name of the episode of The Simpsons Disco Stu first appeared in, Wikipedia is great. When I want a quick description of electron-volts, it’s great.
      .
      I’d never write a biography of a politician using Wikipedia articles as the primary source. As a quick reference, Wikipedia works pretty well.
      .
      Yes, there are people who deliberately try to sabotage it. I really haven’t run across them much. When I did, it was usually obvious and cleaned up very quickly.

      1. I’ve found Wikipedia full of mistakes, deliberate misinformation, and self-appointed “experts” who are convinced they know better than anyone else. In the interest of stopping misinformation spreading via wiki sites I recently deleted a bunch of secret identities given to various Marvel characters, names that the poster had made up themself. I checked the history pages and found those fan-produced names had been on Wiki between 2 and 3 years unchallenged. Around the same time I edited another page that was discussing something related to a Marvel title edited by Tom Brevoort. I cited Tom’s own Marvel blog where he’d discussed the comic in question and explicitly confirmed the amendment I was making; within a couple of hours another poster came in and undid my edit, and when I responded and noted the reference I’d given, I was told “How do we know it’s really Tom Brevoort?” (Well, duh, it’s his personal blog on Marvel’s official site; I doubt it’s an imposter posting there) and “Maybe Tom doesn’t know what he is talking about.” (And if we were discussing quantum physics or xenobiological brain surgery then yes, I’d wonder if Tom was a qualified expert, but this was a comic Tom had personally edited).

        I’ve also seen posters openly discuss on one Wiki site that they should make up their own info to fill in blanks about Marvel characters, with the explicitly stated intention of having it spread to other Wiki sites (because they are all happy to consider one another as reliable sources, ironic given that they don’t trust the better edited IMDB), so that one day a rushed comic writer will use Wiki for their background research and so make the stuff the Wiki site made up “canon.”

        By definition, there are relatively speaking few experts on any given topic. Wikipedia trusts that letting anyone post will mean the majority will iron out the errors of the ignorant and the vandalism of the malignant. That’s a foolish hope in my opinion; I’m not certain about the malignant, but the ignorant definitely have the experts outnumbered.

    3. Failing to make a distinction between the best Wikipedia articles (A featured article, for example) and the worst (a newly-created, unsourced stub), is like failing to make the distinction between an article by Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass and any other article in The New York Times or The New Republic, respectively.
      .
      While Wikipedia needs a number of reforms, much of its content is reliable, and has been judged to be such by respected, independent sources. A review of 50 of its science articles by Nature, for example, found that it had an average of 3 errors per article, whereas Britannica had an average of 4 in articles on the same subjects.
      .
      I observe that Wikipedia tends to generate reactions stemming from uncritical acceptance (Roger Ebert) to uncritical rejection (your comment, for example, Alan). Both are misinformed. The relevant criteria is whether the information in question is well-sourced, and the overall quality of the article in question. I also notice that Google never attracted this level of criticism, even though what you get from using it can be a lot more unpredictable, and less controlled by any set of standards. Why is this?
      .
      If Wikipedia is nigh-useless, than so is every other publication.

  6. It’s worth noting that I’m unable to find any record of a vanity publishing company called “Avon Books.” “Deb” needs to provide a citation to substantiate her claims about this company.

  7. “go watch the Deletionists in action. They’re like the Cybermen but less cuddly.”

    Yeah, after they remove the brain to put in a Cyberman, a Deletionist is what’s left.

  8. I think I’ve encountered a subspecie of deletionist who, in the name of eliminating “cruft”, elides articles of virtually everything of interest.

  9. This reminds me of a story I came across not-too-long ago on NPR (I think). The author/reporter/blogger was talking about how his own wikipedia article had been flagged for removal due to irrelevance or obscurity or what-have-you. Then, in an update shortly after the satirical story, he mentioned that the flag had suddenly been removed.

    I understand the need to avoid clutter and disinformation–after all, this is coming from a guy who made an entry for his college intramural softball team (complete with “citations” to the IM sports’ website) that lasted a good six months–but there should be a consistent standard. Just saying that you don’t think someone is important shouldn’t be enough, and nor should keeping someone in simply because of publicity.

    But then, I wonder, democratically, why not include everything? Is it a bandwidth thing? How about a site that has the “acceptable” Wiki entries, plus whatever people want to add…?

    Anywho, lots of questions, no solutions… 🙂

  10. To be honest, I use Wikipedia quite a lot for basic general information, but the problem is it’s rife with completely random disinformation. You have to hope that what you happen to be looking up has not been corrupted by one of the trolls.

    I have a guy haunting my own page who loathes my work and has made it his personal and publicly stated purpose in life to “bring about my demise.” Even though my books get about 10 favorable reviews to every negative one, including starred reviews in Publishers Weekly and selected as New York Times Notable Books, he insists that in the spirit of “fairness” a nasty review be cited every time an award is cited (even if he has to quote one of his own reviews from a fan site). That’s not the sort of coverage I expect as the user of an encyclopedia.

    1. I don’t disagree, but I think the point some people are making is that those same trolls have an equal chance of getting hired on as a fact-checker for the Encyclopedia Britannica, too. 🙂 We like to think of it as a more authoritative source, because it’s been around for a long time and because it’s big and solid and massive and it’s what we were taught to use in school. But really, any source of information is written and compiled and checked by human beings who are capable of errors.

  11. The whole “notability” thing is really about verifiable information- the rules at Wikipedia require that facts be confirmed in sources that are fact-checked, like published books or newspaper articles. When a person is obscure enough that no one has ever written about him or her, then there’s nothing verifiable to put in an article- that’s when they’re deleted. There really aren’t very many ‘deletionists’ of the mythic sort who just enjoy deleting things, and most people get a kick out of finding the sources that can save an article.

    It’s a popularly misunderstood rule, because people who have had articles deleted often misunderstand the reason, and spread the misunderstanding.

  12. Okay, my biggest beef against wikipedia…

    Editors that look like they have Asperger’s Syndrome. You need only check a page about a comic book character, and you’ll get a huge “biography” describing all the plots of all the adventures the character has ever been in.

    An encyclopedia article should discuss the character as a cultural artifact, from a real world perspective, not get bogged down in a in-world retelling of all of the character’s adventures.

    To a lesser extent, the same thing happens with some movies, TV shows and other stuff, particularly when related to nerd interests.

    Another annoying thing that exacerbates the above problem is wikipedia’s ban on what they call “original research”. You can’t say something like “Alan Moore is one of the most influential of modern comic book writers,” no matter how vident it is, you still have to include “sources” that corroborate Alan Moore’s importance.

    And that is why most posters don’t bother with writing good articles about a character, TV show, or writer, because everything will be deleted as “original research,” the only thing that will be included is the Asperger’s stuff (for instance, over-detailed lists of everything Alan Moore wrote), that is easily verifiable.

    The more “nerdy” the subject, the more the wikipedia article will suffer from Asperger’s “objetivity”

    1. Editors that look like they have Asperger’s Syndrome. You need only check a page about a comic book character, and you’ll get a huge “biography” describing all the plots of all the adventures the character has ever been in.
      Luigi Novi: Yeah, you do get a lot of that with article related to pop culture. Then again, you also get some articles that have risen to the level of Featured Article. The Superman and Batman articles, for example, are both Featured Articles (see the gold star in the upper right-hand corner), and are extremely reliable and well-written.
      .
      Another annoying thing that exacerbates the above problem is wikipedia’s ban on what they call “original research”. You can’t say something like “Alan Moore is one of the most influential of modern comic book writers,” no matter how vident it is, you still have to include “sources” that corroborate Alan Moore’s importance.
      Luigi Novi: Ohmygod how horrible!
      .
      Imagine, having to name your source in order to justify the inclusion of material you wish to add to an article! The madness!
      .
      So you’re saying that you can’t add material because the typical reader who’s unacquainted with the article’s topic, who happens upon an article would have to trust the authority of the anonymous editor who added the material if they didn’t name their source? That’s crazytalk!
      .
      Funny how some people rag about its reliability, while others actually complain about the policies that are designed to improve it.
      .
      Seems to me that a lot of the project’s critics are a tad “unreliable.” 🙂

      1. Oh, I’m aware of the reasons why there is a ban on “original research,” and they’re sensible reasons, but that doesn’t stop me from thinking it’s very annoying when every single dámņëd sentence must be corroborated by outside sources.

        The frustrating thing about wikipedia is that common sense many times do not apply. If you were writing a book about a subject, you would do well to include references to backup the more controversial or obscure bits. But you wouldn’t have to corroborate every single sentence, obviously. On something of Wikipedia’s magnitude, you can’t rely on people common sense, so a concept as innocent and non-controversial as “Superman has a blue, red, and yellow costume” has to be corroborated by a reliable source. And then people will avoid writing anything that has to be sourced, and articles on movies, for instance, will consist only of a huge synopsis, because that is one of the few things that wikipedia lawyers will not delete because it’s unsourced.

        I think what really bothers me is that over-long synopsis or biographies of fictional characters are not deleted with the same gusto as non-controversial unsourced statements.

        Big names like Superman and Batman are the exception. They have kick-ášš pages. But just compare their pages with the disgusting pages on Mockingbird and Wonder Man. Superman has enough fans, so someone took the time to include all the “sources” (and my God, there are references to backup the fact that Superman has a blue, red, and yellow costume!), but who will take the time to hunt all those references for Wonder Man?

      2. I added a sentence to a Wikipedia article that probably qualifies as “original research”.
        .
        The thing is that it’s an important corroboration of what has apparently been only a rumour for years, the truth or untruth of which would be of interest to literally thousands of people around the world.
        .
        And, judging by the original wording of the Wikipedia article in question, i may be the only person in the world who has read the article who is in a position to definitively resolve the question (the rumour is true, BTW) … and that only because i once owned the item in question.
        .
        (And i’m not mentioning what article in order to prevent the Kontent Kops from finding out where that one sentence is…)
        .
        (OTOH, i’m writing an article about it for a Hugo-winning fanzine…)

      3. …As someone who HAS Asperger’s Syndrome…
        |

        |
        I feel better now.

        I occasionally alter articles on Wiki, but only when I see something I know for a fact to be in accurate or out of date. I never write entire pages of stuff. Never more than a sentence or two, actually. Your generalization disgusts me.

    2. Rene: Oh, I’m aware of the reasons why there is a ban on “original research,” and they’re sensible reasons, but that doesn’t stop me from thinking it’s very annoying when every single dámņëd sentence must be corroborated by outside sources.
      Luigi Novi: Those appear to be contradictory statements. If you agree that the principle is sensible, how can it be annoying to apply it to every sentence? Although there is a narrow range of material that so obvious (“Christmas is on December 25”) that even Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales agreed that it doesn’t require sourcing, everything else should. Otherwise, the alternative is that material be introduced based on personal knowledge or unsubstantiated impressions, and that readers are expected to trust the credibility of an anonymous editor. That’s isn’t reasonable if the project is to have any sort of reliability. Wikipedia’s strength is in its sourcing. It’s what makes it possible for non-experts to contribute. Whereas references sources based on credentialing or expertise use those things as standards of reliability, a project without credentialing or expertise must shift the burden on the source. That’s why Wikipedia does so, and that’s the point upon which the reliability of any given material (or overall, an article) rests.
      .
      Rene: But just compare their pages with the disgusting pages on Mockingbird and Wonder Man. Superman has enough fans, so someone took the time to include all the “sources” (and my God, there are references to backup the fact that Superman has a blue, red, and yellow costume!), but who will take the time to hunt all those references for Wonder Man?
      Luigi Novi: You and I. That’s how it works.
      .
      But just out of curiosity, what’s wrong with those two articles. Both of them are filled with sources. (And which Mockingbird did you mean, the Marvel or DC one?)
      .
      Mike Weber: I added a sentence to a Wikipedia article that probably qualifies as “original research”…i may be the only person in the world who has read the article who is in a position to definitively resolve the question (the rumour is true, BTW) … and that only because i once owned the item in question.
      Luigi Novi: But if you owned, then it doesn’t need to be original research. All you have to do is cite the item. Why make the project less reliable by omitting it? And how would you be the only one in the world to do this? Did the item have a print run of only one? 🙂
      .
      Deb: Being an admin, I could have just deleted the article and it would probably have been months before any of you noticed.
      Luigi Novi:Being an admin, I can say you’re wrong, as you cannot enact a Speedy deletion (in which administrators can bypass the discussion process) without a valid rationale, based on the criteria described by (The uninitiated can search on the site for: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). Looking over the article, it satisfies none of those criteria. Nominating it was the only valid move.

      1. Luigi, you made a perfect error. In Wikipedia, there are no demonstrable facts. Obama will always *allegedly* be born in Hawaii and evolution will always be a theory of antireligious scientists.

        There will always be someone who can cite a source and reedit the articles or mark them for deletion because of inaccuracies. Without the ability of things to be settled at some point, the madness will go on forever.

        And Christmas is January 7th as all good Orthodox Christians know. 😉

      2. I’m not sure I’m following you, Brian.
        .
        The fact that there are fringe beliefs does not mean that they can be cited as reliable sources in anything other than articles/discussion on their nature as fringe beliefs. Creationism can be discussed in the article on creationism, or in the article on the Evolution/Creationism controversy, or in an article on a creationist like Kirk Cameron or Ann Coulter or Ken Hamm. But it does not get equal billing with natural selection in an article on natural selection. Ditto for the Birthers in Obama’s article, except when speaking in context about the Birther controversy. One of the policies governing the inclusion of material is that Undue Weight cannot be given to a fringe or non-mainstream view, and that with respect to controversies, any relevant article or portion of an article on a controversy must describe it in a neutral manner, without giving equal weight to a fringe view. The article on Flat Earth Theory, for example, describes the views of that belief’s proponents, but it does not get equal mention in the article on the planet Earth, or geology.

      3. To call Orthodox Christianity (and the state religion of the largest country on earth) a “fringe belief” is pretty crazy.

        Working on a real encyclopedia would mean not necessarily having a greater knowledge of such things, but would require a commitment and dedication to research that even here you haven’t shown.

        It’s a bit like journalism. Once you get used to the standard required for the work, it’s always there and can’t be readily turned on and off.

  13. It’s pretty obvious that many of the people contributing to this discussion are not regular wikipedia users or contributors and don’t understand how it works. The nomination for deletion of this article was made on the basis that the article does not provide evidence of notability. Being an admin, I could have just deleted the article and it would probably have been months before any of you noticed. But I was in genuine doubt, so I nominated it for deletion and the discussion that arose provided evidence that I was mistaken. I can cope with that. But hey, after seeing those amateurish covers, who could blame the average reader for believing that all Mr Robertson’s books were self-published? The Tor Books article on wikipedia was multi-tagged (for lack of references, among other things) and the Avon website does not list Mr Robertson as one of their authors. I don’t go bananas when someone nominates an article I’ve created for deletion – I just make an effort to improve the article. Actually, I do agree that wikipedia goes over the top on the need for references, and I have argued this internally. But do you realise how many people set up accounts on wikipedia every single day for the sole purpose of creating one article on one nonentity (usually themselves) or advertising their own small firm or personal business or trying to get themselves a modelling contract or trying to get their unsigned band some google hits? Pennyforth is right, I do get a lot of hate mail on wikipedia – I don’t need it here as well, thanks. If your arguments are strong enough, you shouldn’t need to resort to personal abuse.

    1. Kath the Wife here.

      Deb has replied to what Peter wrote here on his board. I want everyone to behave. No dogpiling. No personal insults.

      Got it?

      Kathleen

    2. “But hey, after seeing those amateurish covers, who could blame the average reader for believing that all Mr Robertson’s books were self-published?”
      .
      I could. Whether or not you like the covers has nothing to do with whether or not the books are self published.
      .
      If sourcing is important to you, perhaps you should have found sources for your claims of illegitimacy instead of just assuming that the books were self published.

      1. I have to admit that Avon covers of the era were pretty dire.
        .
        Check , href=”http://www.fanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/02-Don-Ivan-Punchatz-foundation-covers.jpg”>this out – and that was the covers they stuck on a widely-acknowledged classic of SF by one of the top authors who have ever been in it.

      2. .
        Yeah, I’ve got some paperbacks from years gone by that have amazing artwork on them. Then again I have some that look like bad Jack Kirby knockoffs done by jr. high school kids on heavy flu meds.
        .
        Oddly, some of the worst covers I’ve seen are on some of the biggest names in the fields.

    3. Deb, there are alternate sources to try. Such as the Library of Congress or Amazon.

      I think any criticism is that your own research skills are weak, and I would have to agree. (Although, perhaps I’m being an old man; I certainly remember Avon Books as a publisher of authors such as Isaac Asimov. I trust you wouldn’t consider him to be a self-publisher?)

      1. Another good source for out of print books is Abebooks (www.abebooks.com) which has lots of information about each title. It is a used book site with very knowledgeable book people.

    4. So you’re saying that we should all be grateful that you didn’t just disappear the article because that was within your power? Pardon me while I genuflect.
      .
      What you don’t seem to understand is what people are reacting to. They are reacting to the utterly arbitrary manner in which articles are targeted for deletion.
      .
      They are reacting to the fact that there is no particular reason for it, to say nothing of rhyme.
      .
      They are reacting to the narrow minded view that translates to, “I’ve never heard of it; therefore it must not be important,” as if importance is remotely relevant in an endeavor that raises the trivial and mundane to the level of artform.
      .
      They are reacting to the tone deafness of a policy that refuses to accept on-line sources that have a better track record for accuracy than Wikipedia does.
      .
      They are reacting to a holier-than-thou self-righteousness that dismisses publishers out of hand because you don’t like the covers and the presumption of even endeavoring to pass judgment about a science fiction writer when you’ve never heard of Tor and you think Avon is a vanity press.
      .
      They are reacting to the arrogance of a mindset that works as follows: “I think this is wrong. Prove I’m right. Oh, there’s proof? I don’t believe it. What, you’re in a better position to know than I am? I don’t care.”
      .
      And don’t waste my time with this business that it’s because we don’t spend time on Wikipedia, because there are plenty of people who are regular contributors who despise the deletionist mentality.
      .
      Personal abuse? You know what? When you take the kindergarten mentality of, “I don’t think you’re important; you can’t be in my club,” then people are going to take that personally.
      .
      Maybe the reason you get hate mail is because you bring it on yourself. And if people putting up self-promotion pieces is a problem, then here’s an idea: Confine yourself to proving to others that that’s what they’re doing. Stop demanding that award winning people jump through your hoops.
      .
      PAD

      1. No, Peter, I’m not saying anything of the sort. I’m explaining to you the difference between (a) deleting something without any thought and (b) considering whether it merits deletion and admitting you’re not sure by nominating it for deletion and getting consensus.

        I notice that your contributions to wikipedia are very occasional so maybe the distinction is not obvious to you, but I don’t agree that mature people should take it personally when someone asks them questions or asks them to add references to the article. Just remember that all my statements, erroneous or otherwise, were made on a discussion page, not in a wikipedia article.

        As for “demanding”, if people take the approach that they can just make an anonymous statement (such as the names of editors), surely they should expect to be asked for further details? Which was, actually, all I did.

        I’ve never been afraid to admit when I’m wrong about something, and I don’t actually care about the hate mail. If you look at it, you’ll understand why. People who have a genuine argument don’t need to stoop that low, and I won’t stoop to that level either.

      2. No, Peter, I’m not saying anything of the sort. I’m explaining to you the difference between (a) deleting something without any thought and (b) considering whether it merits deletion and admitting you’re not sure by nominating it for deletion and getting consensus.
        .
        Consensus. Don’t make me laugh. I was there every step of the way for the deletionist attack on Kristian Ayre’s entry. Opinion split down the middle. There was no consensus. You deleted it anyway. This isn’t about consensus or even accuracy. It’s about sitting in judgment on others, pure and simple.
        .
        I notice that your contributions to wikipedia are very occasional so maybe the distinction is not obvious to you
        .
        You keep playing the “you’re not there as much as I am” card, while ignoring what I’ve repeatedly pointed out: Plenty of regulars on Wikipedia can’t stand the Deletionist mentality. In other words you’re doing what you typically do: Ignore either opinions or statements of fact that don’t match up with your beliefs.
        .
        but I don’t agree that mature people should take it personally when someone asks them questions or asks them to add references to the article.
        .
        Not to go all Ronald Reagan, but…there you go again. No one is taking fact checking personally. They’re taking being told they’re not good enough for Wikipedia personally. They’re taking being dismissed out of hand personally. They’re taking being told that they don’t know what they’re talking about when it is you, in fact, who don’t know what YOU are talking about, personally. It’s what you’re doing right here–displaying an intellectual obtuseness that leaves even the most mature of people banging their heads in frustration–that gets you your hate mail.
        .
        Just remember that all my statements, erroneous or otherwise, were made on a discussion page, not in a wikipedia article.
        .
        And you’re supposed to get points for that?
        .
        As for “demanding”, if people take the approach that they can just make an anonymous statement (such as the names of editors), surely they should expect to be asked for further details? Which was, actually, all I did.
        .
        Except from Kevin’s account–which I have no reason to doubt–you rejected or denied the details. And the reasons you provided here for doing so were so ridiculous that you should be embarrassed over them. As has been demonstrated, half a dozen people on this board were able to come up with more reliable and accurate information in two minutes than you were able to in who-knows-how-long, and you purport to be a researcher. So what does that say about your skills? And if you’re that lacking in them, then how can you expect to be taken seriously?
        .
        I’ve never been afraid to admit when I’m wrong about something,
        .
        Except you don’t have to admit it when you don’t acknowledge it.
        .
        and I don’t actually care about the hate mail.
        .
        Two things: First, you brought it up in your very first posting. Second, everyone cares about hate mail. So I’m calling BS on this one.
        .
        PAD

    5. Deb, if you want to be an objective editor where publishing is concerned, you should remove “amateurish” cover art from your criteria for notability. As an avid hunter of books at flea markets, yard sales, used bookstores, etc., I could come up with any number of examples of books by quite notable authors that have had at least one printing featuring truly awful or inaccurate cover art. One that immediately springs to mind is an omnibus edition of the first three Dragonriders of Pern novels, the cover of which features people riding what appear to be poorly-rendered pteradons with brontosaurus necks and heads.
      .
      As the saying goes, don’t judge a book by its cover.
      .
      Chuck
      (And yes, I know we’re supposed to call it an “apatosaurus” nowadays–old habits die hard, okay?)

    6. Deb: Being an admin, I could have just deleted the article and it would probably have been months before any of you noticed.
      Sorry I accidentally posted this above in response to the wrong post:
      .
      Deb: Being an admin, I could have just deleted the article and it would probably have been months before any of you noticed.
      Luigi Novi: Being an admin, I can say you’re wrong, as you cannot enact a Speedy deletion (in which administrators can bypass the discussion process) without a valid rationale, based on the criteria described by (The uninitiated can search on the site for: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). Looking over the article, it satisfies none of those criteria. Nominating it was the only valid move, as you had no authority to speedy delete it, though you should’ve spent more time verifying your notion about the publisher.
      .
      Jason Bryant: If sourcing is important to you, perhaps you should have found sources for your claims of illegitimacy instead of just assuming that the books were self published.
      .
      Roger tang: I think any criticism is that your own research skills are weak.
      Luigi Novi: Responsibility for adding sources falls on the person who adds the material or creates the article, not on others. While others can take up the slack to find such sources (and for the record, I have, many times), it is not fair to argue that everyone else has to clean up the mess that others dump onto the site. If more individual editor took responsibility for the edits in which they add material, there would be a lot less problems on the site.
      .
      Peter David: They are reacting to the fact that there is no particular reason for it, to say nothing of rhyme. They are reacting to the narrow minded view that translates to, “I’ve never heard of it; therefore it must not be important,” as if importance is remotely relevant in an endeavor that raises the trivial and mundane to the level of artform.
      Luigi Novi: There is indeed a reason, and it has nothing to do with whether the particular editor who happens upon an article has heard of the subject. The reason is that the sources that establish the subject’s notability have to be in the article. Deb’s view that the books were self-published may have been wrong, but the fact that the article lacked sources still holds true. If more contributors treated the site like an encyclopedia, and not a fan site, and more people who had a problem with this rolled up their sleeves and pitched in instead of bìŧçhìņg and whining when people like Deb and I do our jobs to keep it source-based, this wouldn’t be as much of an issue.
      .
      Peter David: Consensus. Don’t make me laugh. I was there every step of the way for the deletionist attack on Kristian Ayre’s entry.
      Luigi Novi: Yeah, and despite that, you misrepresented it in your BID column about it, just as you’ve done so here.
      .
      Mike Weber: Deb, you are *not* acting professionally – or even rationally. I just did a Google on Avon. This was the third major result. Is that good enough for you? (Hint: Perhaps you could search Wikipedia to see if there’s any information on it that relates to the subject you’re considering.)
      Luigi Novi: Yeah, that’s rational. Source information in one Wikipedia by citing another one. Yeah, that’s not circular sourcing at all. 🙂
      .
      Websites whose content is user-generated, such as imdb, or other wikis, including other Wikipedia articles, are not reliable, because that is circular reasoning, unless that article itself has reliable sources, in which case you can cite them, and while the Avon Books article does have a good source, I don’t know if you had that qualifier in mind when you said that.

      1. Responsibility for adding sources falls on the person who adds the material or creates the article, not on others. While others can take up the slack to find such sources (and for the record, I have, many times), it is not fair to argue that everyone else has to clean up the mess that others dump onto the site.

        Then THAT should be made clear in correspondence and in reports made on Wiki. If people have a fuzzy idea of where responsibilities lie, then people with responsibilities should be clear on where it does.

        That’s definitely not happening here. (In fact, the exact opposite happened and superior objective sources were offered AND rejected–based on Deb’s lack of knowledge and refusal to acknowledge that lack).

      2. Roger: Then THAT should be made clear in correspondence and in reports made on Wiki.
        Luigi Novi: Agreed. That’s a big problem on the site, IMO. Too many people seem to have their own interpretation of the Verifiability and No Original Research policies, and this leads to endless edit warring and discussion, when Jimmy Wales and others could simply put their foot down and say, “Look, add a source, or it doesn’t go on the site.” A pop-up box for new editors (say, for the first few months of an editor’s tenure, or maybe his/her first 1,000 edits) asking them to confirm whether any substantial amount of material they added is found in sources already in the article, or if they added sources themselves, would facilitate this.
        .
        Roger: That’s definitely not happening here. (In fact, the exact opposite happened and superior objective sources were offered AND rejected–based on Deb’s lack of knowledge and refusal to acknowledge that lack).
        Luigi Novi: No, that’s a separate issue. The sources were brought up on the talk page. If they had simply been placed in the article, it would’ve been fine. If Deb objected then, they would’ve simply corrected her, as they did, which she accepted. I was talking about material not supported by sources when it’s first added to the article, not when an editor questions them after the fact.

      3. Luigi Novi: Responsibility for adding sources falls on the person who adds the material or creates the article, not on others.
        .
        I disagree. The “sourcing” that I was referring to wasn’t sourcing for the article, but sourcing for her own claims. If she’s not willing to do the work necessary to check if publishers are regular publishers or vanity publishers, then she shouldn’t guess and then take action based on those guesses. All of us have a responsibility to find out the facts before taking any kind of action.

      4. If more contributors treated the site like an encyclopedia, and not a fan site, and more people who had a problem with this rolled up their sleeves and pitched in instead of bìŧçhìņg and whining when people like Deb and I do our jobs to keep it source-based, this wouldn’t be as much of an issue.
        .
        Luigi, the reason that people treat it like a fan site is: It’s a fan site. It’s all volunteer, anyone can contribute, and there’s always some version of Head Nurse slugging it out with McMurphy. It IS absolutely a fan site. At most it’s a fan site with delusions of grandeur and pretensions of being a research venue on par with a legitimate encyclopedia, but it’s not. Perhaps the fact is that people standing on the outside of Wikipedia have a clearer view of that than those inside.
        .
        And I did roll up my sleeves and get involved when Kristian’s article was attacked. I would have had a more coherent conversation if I’d been sitting at the Mad Tea Party. There was nothing about the experience that encouraged further involvement, although I did get quite a few emails from an assortment of Wikipedia regulars thanking me for getting involved because those very people who are rolling up their sleeves and already are elbow deep in it were telling me that Deletionists were pompous jáçkáššëš and they appreciated my attempts to break through the wall of ignorance. And man, did they LOVE the CBG article I wrote about the experience.
        .
        What annoys people about the Deletionist mentality is that it reeks of classic fan arrogance and pretension, except it’s gussied up and disguised as academics. It’s not. It’s a bunch of fans telling people, “Sorry: We don’t think you’re good enough to be mentioned here.” Why? Because they’re trying to save paper and ink? No. Because it’s a power trip, pure and simple.
        .
        If the Deletionists went away tomorrow, you know what impact that would have on the users of Wikipedia? None. Zero. Zip. The world would not end. Wikipedia would not, like the Blob, suddenly break its bounds and go oozing throughout the Internet devouring all that it encountered. Absolutely nothing would change if there weren’t a group of people running around saying, “You don’t meet our standards.”
        .
        And I suspect Deb knows that.
        .
        PAD

      5. I was being sarcastic – but, as others have pointed out, Wikipedia is a good starting point, and, i believe, that article has citations.
        .
        But the point is, if you’re a Wikipedia “administrator”, it might be reasonable to discover what has already appeared on your site on the subject and been accepted before you start tossing firebombs around…

    7. Also, I find it interesting that you categorize the comments I cited from your talk page as “hate mail”. The majority of those I read were not hateful or even rude–they were reasonable queries as to why you deleted an article or nominated one for deletion.
      .
      If so many people react to what you do with a lack of understanding as to why you’re doing it, you might want to consider the notion that the problem lies with *you*.
      .
      Chuck

      1. Dear Chuck (have I got that right) – If you were to look at all the stuff that’s been deleted from my talk page over the years (and often, other users have deleted it before I even saw it), you would understand what I’m talking about. Much of it is along the lines of “You ****, you deleted my article” and I do believe that a lot of it (sad to report) comes from very young users who haven’t yet learned to control themselves. But what I get is nothing compared with a lot of what other admins get. I’ve known people suffer 24-hour-a-day harassment because they dared to try to enforce the very basic wikipedia guidelines on an article or a user. That’s why I don’t get upset about it any more.

      2. Oh, Deb, how you suffer for your art.
        .
        Poor poor pitiful you.
        .
        And you do it so well…

      3. Peter David: Luigi, the reason that people treat it like a fan site is: It’s a fan site. It’s all volunteer, anyone can contribute…
        Luigi Novi: Wrong.
        .
        A bold endeavor built upon a lofty vision (in this case, making the world’s knowledge available and free to everyone) is not a “fan site” simply because it experiences problems in its nascent stages, or because its content is volunteer-generated, any more than volunteer firefighters or relief workers are “fans” of disaster, and you do a disservice to them all with this snide attitude, which stems merely from the fact that your attempt to ensure an article on a friend/colleague of yours didn’t go the way you wanted.
        .
        Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It may not have attained the standard that it seeks, but that doesn’t mean that it never will, or that by default, it is a fan site for not having yet done so. To look down your nose at a project created by volunteers, simply because they haven’t yet fixed all of its problems, and dismiss their vision as a “delusion”, simply because they haven’t gotten there yet, and make no distinction between good editors/articles and bad ones, is just pessimistic, mean-spirited dismissiveness, and more a reflection of your own biases and bad experiences than of any objective assessment of the project.
        .
        Peter David: At most it’s a fan site with delusions of grandeur and pretensions of being a research venue on par with a legitimate encyclopedia, but it’s not.
        Luigi Novi: The Nature study of the site’s science articles says otherwise.
        .
        Peter David: And I did roll up my sleeves and get involved when Kristian’s article was attacked. I would have had a more coherent conversation if I’d been sitting at the Mad Tea Party.
        Luigi Novi: Kristian article was not “attacked”, and the discussion was quite coherent. In it, a number of people, including myself, explained to you why various policies and guidelines on the site were perfectly reasonable. It was explained to you, for example, why reliable, third-party published sources are needed to establish notability, and not merely the say-so of the subject’s colleagues or fans. You complained about this, but did not explain why it unreasonable, during that discussion, nor in your column. Visitors here can read that discussion to see how “incoherent” is was at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kristian_Ayre
        .
        Peter David: I did get quite a few emails from an assortment of Wikipedia regulars thanking me for getting involved because those very people who are rolling up their sleeves and already are elbow deep in it were telling me that Deletionists were pompous jáçkáššëš and they appreciated my attempts to break through the wall of ignorance. And man, did they LOVE the CBG article I wrote about the experience.
        Luigi Novi: And for all we know, any number or most of those people could’ve been people who, like you, are willfully ignorant of Wikipedia’s policies, don’t want discuss or consider why they’re important, and often leave the site in a huff after just sticking their toe in the water, because they don’t have what it takes to stick it out on a site that requires not only collaboration, but standards for content as well. We see this all the time with editors who come onto the site, don’t care to learn the guidelines, don’t want to be told, and then get obnoxious when people try to help them, even politely, like me. I could give you loads of examples of people who attacked me after I tried to politely help them this way. I don’t know what proportion, if any, of the people who contacted you fall into this category, but then again, neither do you. And somehow, I doubt you really care.
        .
        Peter David: It’s a bunch of fans telling people, “Sorry: We don’t think you’re good enough to be mentioned here.” Why? Because they’re trying to save paper and ink? No. Because it’s a power trip, pure and simple.
        Luigi Novi: An emotional, paranoid distortion originating from your own irritation that your friend’s article was deleted at the time, nothing more.
        .
        Peter David: If the Deletionists went away tomorrow, you know what impact that would have on the users of Wikipedia? None.
        Luigi Novi: Unlike you, I’m not going to generalize about every single editor who focuses on notability and deletion discussions (I’m funny that way), in part because I myself haven’t participated in too many (and I wager that you haven’t either), but I can say that if Wikipedia’s standards for notability were not upheld, it would result in a lot of articles on topics that did not merit it.
        .
        Funny how you accuse the site of have delusions of grandeur for simply having a vision, a good idea, and not yet having succeeded in attaining that vision with perfection, but advocate removing a barrier that would make attaining that goal even harder, and the site even worse.

      4. A bold endeavor built upon a lofty vision (in this case, making the world’s knowledge available and free to everyone) is not a “fan site”
        .
        It’s still a ‘fan site’. And it’s not snide to say so. It’s simply the truth, a truth you will likely never admit because you’ve put Wikipedia up on some altar it does not belong on.

  14. By the way, Deb…if you don’t think a publisher like Avon Books wouldn’t put the kibosh on a vanity press that called itself Avon Books, then I think you’re not quite thinking straight.

  15. The only article that I’ve come across that was deleted was that of Gene Ray. While he’s not exactly the most famous guy (or sane) around, he is the creator of the wildly known internet phenomenon known as the Time-Cube. And he was known enough to get invited to speak at MIT (although when you learn what Time-Cube is, you’ll see how silly the whole thing is). While it’s exactly the sort of article that probably has uncorroberated facts, I was rather sad to see it gone. Honestly though, it’s also exactly the sort of thing that borders on poking-fun at someone who clearly has some sort of mental issues, so in the end it’s probably for the best that it’s been taken down.
    .
    Wikipedia for me is definitely a jumping off point, but it is a great way to casually learn more about a subject.
    .
    And it was somewhat hilarious to read the discussion page for my own hometown, which was entirely an argument about whether the town’s most well recognized newspaper or some guy’s zine he had run for a summer were more important to have up on the wikipedia. P.S., the newspaper’s still around, the zine isn’t. Who’da thunk?

  16. You’re probably right about that, Roger, but does that make me a wicked person? I think not. As for “research skills”, how long would you think I would spend looking for evidence that Mr Robertson was a famous author before I would nominate his article for deletion to try to get some opinion one way or the other? Do you think I would explore absolutely every source? Then I would have to disappoint you. If I am sure of my ground, I delete. (Example of one I deleted a few minutes ago: “we heard some one had passed away and people are still investagating some one was shot and theres a search if you see anyone please leve a message”.) If not, I nominate. Then I go off and do other, more useful, things, such as creating and improving articles on subjects that I either already know about or can research with more confidence. If you look at the range of deletion debates on wikipedia (and believe me, they aren’t all about science fiction authors), you will find that there are many cases where it is very difficult to make up one’s mind even after knowing all the facts. Then there are clear-cut cases where there is, for example, a conflict of interest involved. Now I thought you might be interested in knowing what led me to the Robertson article in the first place, since it wasn’t a newly-created article. One of the tell-tale signs of a COI is where a contributor creates links to lots of other articles where the relevance is tenuous – they do this to disguise the fact that the author/singer/model/book/song or whatever is unknown. And someone had added one of Mr Robertson’s books to the article on King Edward IV of England! This made me suspicious – especially since the link showed up in red because it hadn’t been formatted properly. I went to see if there really was such an author, and found an author whose list of works were by various different publishers. I went to the Avon Books site and found no evidence that such an author existed. (BTW, the results you get by googling for Avon Books are really weird.) In fact, on Google, his name gets half as many hits as mine does – admittedly, his name is more unusual. What I can’t figure out is, why were none of the people who contributed to the debate, and to whom this author is apparently so important, willing to take the trouble to add references to the article? As for the comment about the cover, maybe it’s below the belt (and of course it was intended humorously), but that’s because I’ve seen a lot of self-published books and that’s what their covers look like. You can usually tell one a mile off just by the typeface. Anyhow, guys, I’m really glad that one of my fellow contributors pointed out the debate that was going on here, otherwise I wouldn’t have known this website existed or realised I was so famous. It’s the best publicity I’ve had since a reviewer described the experience of reading one of my books as akin to taking part in the Japanese game show “Endurance”. She gave me half a page in a national magazine! But I would suggest that, just as you expect me to know everything about your favourite authors before I dare to start a debate about whether they are notable, you should maybe find out more about wikipedia and try to understand why “deletionism” happens before you make it the target of a hate campaign.

    1. While you might think that it’s unreasonable to do more than 2 minutes of research before deleting an article, perhaps that’s just a cynical attitude that’s getting in the way. I certainly know what it’s like to work in a job where you’re constantly being lied to by various customers, but before I take any steps toward making them responsible, I attempt to verify ALL the information they give me. And you know what? 95% of the time they’re wrong. But there’s that 5% of the time that it turns out something was wrong on my end. It goes a long way toward everyone understanding each other, and generally more civil situations.
      .
      But you do a brief Google search of Avon books, find some weird results, and that’s enough for you. Well, obviously, it’s not enough to keep things exactly civil. And generally, you’ll find in this blog, a community of people who, even when they vehemently disagree, do what they can to keep things, at the very least, civil.
      .
      My point? Sure doing a little extra research might not be fun if it’s an article you’re not interested in, but if you want to be bulletproof in your argument, it needs to happen.

      1. But you do a brief Google search of Avon books, find some weird results, and that’s enough for you.

        And, based on the results i found in a Very Basic Google of AVon, she didn’t do a very good one, either.

    2. By the way, I did an Amazon.com search for “r garcia y robertson,” and the first book that popped up had the publisher listed as Tor Fantasy.

    3. I don’t think anybody is making Wicked-Pedia the target of a hate campaign because of its deletion policy, I think it is the target of a hate campaign because of the near impossibility of making corrections to obviously wrong information.
      .
      Corrections get submitted, then are reverted almost instantly. Some people submit corrections and are then told they need more proof, even when 4 or 5 other sources have the right information.
      .
      “…otherwise I wouldn’t have known this website existed or realised I was so famous.”
      .
      Quoted without comment.

    4. Nobody has said you’re wicked, unless you’re seriously considering the obvious joke of “wicked pedia” which Alan, not Roger, made as some sort of assault. If you are, then it’s positively ludicrous that you would find yourself clueless as to why people would take offense or “hate” you when you pass judgment on their notability, i.e., importance. You take “Wicked pedia” to heart but can’t wrap yourself around why people would be pìššëd øff when you declare that they’re not good enough for inclusion? Really?
      .
      When you’re sure, you delete? Congratulations. You’ve just supported everything I said about the arbitrary nature of what you do. Where do you set your level of certainty? What’s the cut-off line? Because most normal people have had many times where they were sure about something and turned out to be dead wrong. So you’re saying that you are an elite individual for whom certainty is a 100% guarantee of correctness?
      .
      And you wonder why you get hate mail.
      .
      Again: Plenty of people who are on Wikipedia can’t stand deletionists, can’t stand the entire concept of deletionism and, according to your own words, can’t stand you.
      .
      Good thing you’re sure. Otherwise you might have to open yourself to the possibility that you might be wrong.
      .
      PAD

    5. One final note, the website for Tor books is simply Tor.com, with a link to a website just for their published works. It’s somewhat more difficult to find Mr. Robertson’s listing, but that’s only because he’s listed under “G” for “Garcia,” instead of the obvious. Even with that minor inconvenience, I still found it in about 2 minutes. And I’m not even invested in this beyond seeing how easy it really is.

    6. .
      Deb, I think one thing that’s raising some eyebrows, certainly mine, in the first reading wasn’t just you lack of familiarity with the author, but, if the exchange was reported accurately by Mr. Anderson, your dismissals of Avon, Tor and “variety of companies” as self publishing entities in the discussion. Just the Avon and Tor bit alone makes it look like someone who is just angling to get a page deleted for no real reason other than some personal or trollish reasons since most science fiction and fantasy readers are very familiar with both publishers.
      .
      There’s also an easier way to look up an author who has had work recently published than what you apparently did judging by your reference to “the results you get by googling for Avon Books” being really weird and sifting through that mess and their site. Just try Barnes & Noble or Books-a-Million.
      .
      Seriously. I went to those sites before posting on whether or not it would be easy to look the guy up and got lots of his books by searching his name. Both sites give you publisher information in their pages for the books. You can rather quickly bring up the books and see listed in the publisher slot Tor Books, Golden Gryphon Press, HarperCollins Publishers and Doherty, Tom Associates, LLC as publishers. And it took maybe two minutes to do it.
      .
      Now, I know that a few of those may not be immediatly recognizable as mainstream, but HarperCollins, even if it is on a now out of print book, should stick out like a sore thumb.
      .
      So, yeah, your reasons for doing what you did may have initially been fine and reasonable, but can sorta understand how others might take your later responses the wrong way?

      1. Yes, of course I can understand that, but I don’t really understand why people are assuming my motive was to get rid of the article no matter what. I think this is because they don’t see how the thing works.

        What I saw was this. I make a statement (which turns out to be incorrect). Someone else contradicts it. I check again and still think that I am right because Avon publishers (which aren’t actually called Avon Books at all) don’t mention this author as one of theirs and there are several other firms in the UK called Avon Books. I see now that Avon Books had no connection with HarperCollins at the time the book in question was published. The present Avon imprint specializes in romance and women’s fiction. So I amend my comment and hope that others will come up with further information about Avon and Tor. Is it then my job to go and do intensive research on this subject? You may think so, but for me it is just a waste of time when there are obviously other people who know more about this author, and I’m hoping someone will come up with some concrete information – but no one does. Someone else appears anonymously and says he knows the editors who worked on the book, but again no one will give a reference or add anything to the article.

        And in the meantime, what is happening? Is the article being deleted? No. Is consensus to keep the article building up? Yes. Do I even have the power to delete it? No, because I nominated it, so the deletion has to be done by an impartial admin.

        Thankfully the article has now been expanded and improved. Result!

      2. Deb: “but I don’t really understand why people are assuming my motive was to get rid of the article no matter what…
        .
        “What I saw was this. I make a statement (which turns out to be incorrect)”

        .
        That’s why. That attitude right there is why people are questioning your motive.
        .
        Your statement didn’t just “turn out” to be incorrect. It was wrong because you did a poor job of finding out the facts. If you’re not willing to do the work to find out the facts, then you shouldn’t start the deletion process on articles.
        .
        It’s good that you’re willing to admit that you made a mistake about the status of the author. The problem that people have is that you won’t admit that there is a *reason* why you made that mistake. It didn’t just randomly work out that you happened to be slightly off target, your assumptions were not reasonable because you did not do a good enough job finding out the truth. Which means you’re going to make the same mistake again with future articles.
        .
        Until you admit that you were not just mistaken in your facts, but also in your methodology, there’s going to be a problem.

      3. I think that point that many of us (myself included) are attempting to make is that the research wasn’t all that intensive. In fact, it was remarkably easy and speedy.\
        .
        It would’ve been much more graceful for you to just admit that you were wrong in this case. Perhaps you were having a bad day and just didn’t want to take the time or something. We all make mistakes. But just because they’re made in the first place is no reason to shovel yourself into a hole with a lot of strangers watching.

    7. Deb, you are *not* acting professionally – or even rationally.
      .
      I just did a Google on Avon.
      .
      This was the third major result.
      .
      Is that good enough for you?
      .
      (Hint: Perhaps you could search Wikipedia to see if there’s any information on it that relates to the subject you’re considering.)
      .
      Then, there’s this entry, the fifth result.
      .
      Down two more, and we saa this, which says

      Avon Books, a Harper Collins Company and the second oldest paperback publishing house in the United States, publishes books for adults and young readers. The company was founded in 1941 and was recently acquired by Harper Collins

      .
      Or you could have looked, oh, i don’t know, here and discovered that his work is considered notable enough to publish in translation to other major languages.

      In short, you didn’t bother to spend thirty seconds, let alone five minutes, checking sources.
      .
      You had never heard of him, so he couldn’t be important or notable.
      .
      (BTW – Mr Paragraph is your friend. I have skimmed, not not fully read any of your posts because, quite simply, aside from questionable logic, stilted grammar and general self-righteous fervour, they are simply unreadably constructed visually.)

      (Since i included a number of links in this post, it may drop to moderation. None of the links are spam or to malicious sites, so i hope it clears moderation quickly if it does wind up there…)

    8. First off, Deb I have to say I at least respect your stepping into the lion’s den here. I don’t agree with you, but it does take guts to post where you know you’re going be put on the defensive.
      .
      Having said that, you asked how long you should spend checking someone before marking them for possible deletion. I copied and pasted his pseudonym (the name of the wiki article) into Google, and within seconds a variety of sources came up, including Amazon.com complete with an ISBN number in the description. The listing immediately below is from Macmillan, one of the top book publishers. Further down that first page of results is a reference to the aforementioned Tor Books, also well known in the book field. Now I actually am one of those Asperger people Rene describes above, but despite that, that first page of results would satisfy me that the person probably is as noteworthy as they’re alleged to be without any need to spend any further time investigating. In contrast, flagging this for deletion and then responding to people’s responses has probably cost you a lot more time than that quick check would have taken.

  17. Deb:
    .
    a) Can you explain how nomination for deletion is “asking for … the article to provide some evidence of notability” better than the ({{BLPsources}}) tag subsequently added by Woogee? Per the articles for deletions policy, in the Before nominating an article for deletion section: “If the article is not already tagged to note an existing problem, consider applying a tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.” Can you clarify why this suggestion was ignored in this case?
    .
    b) Can you clarify why, when corrected on your assertion that it was a different Avon books, you simply repeated the assertion with ever referencing any of your research or requesting some support from those with opposing views?
    .
    c) Can you clarify what is so “weird” about the google results for Avon books? Running the search just now, I found 7 of the first 10 deal with Avon Books, including a direct link to Harper Collins (the company who owns the imprint) in the first position, a couple Avon specific pages, the Avon (publishers) article on Wikipedia, a couple of links to amazon.com for Beverly Cleary books and a reference to isbndb.com. It seems consistent with what you would find for any imprint. If anything, I was surprised to only see 1 reference to the Avon cosmetics company, who apparently have an outlet book store online.

  18. You’re probably right about that, Roger, but does that make me a wicked person?

    As I said, a poor researcher. And one obviously not interested in improving their research skills. Rather ironic for someone connected with an institution used for informal research.

    Since this obviously isn’t your day job and is just a volunteer gig, I can let the skills thing slide….but not the attitude.

  19. It is ironic you brought this up, years back, right after you released Being Human, I found the Wiki entry for the New Frontier crew and saw some of the links hadn’t been created. So I went and made one up for Mark, using the information that had been used up to that point.

    It was deleted.

    So I entered it again and then tried to find out why it had been deleted again.

    So I contact the “Admin” who was watching the page and he said 1. The character is minor, so does not rate an entry. 2. The entry itself sounds like fanfic since we all know the character isn’t part god. To which I lost my mind. I explained that was from the book and if he hadn’t read he shouldn’t be editing the page.

    So then he had a vote, from the nine people who were watching the page I suppose to see if the page should stay. The vote came up no and the page was deleted. Two years later a new page for all the characters was created where Mark was condescended down to a paragraph.

    I now know how Ford Prefect felt.

  20. From Deb’s comments here it is obvious to me that she is NOT, as I had speculated, one of those people who deletes others out of jealousy or other churlish motives. She is, however, not a terribly good researcher…or at least she makes far too many assumption based on poor research. Looking at the discussion page in question I am struck by the stubborn insistence she has that Avon is a vanity publisher–she makes the claim at least 3 times. Apparently on the basis of no facts whatsoever. I really would have thought someone in that position would at least do a bit of investigating when confronted with the possibility that they were wrong about something, particularly something so easily checked out.
    .
    I like Alex’s question–what exactly is the big harm in including everything or at least as much as we can?

    1. As to whether Avon is a “vanity publisher”, the first link i included in my last previous post (this link here, that is) pretty well establishes that it isn’t … and should have been easily accessible and fully acceptable to Deb.
      .
      But she didn’t look.
      .
      Because she already knew the answer.

    2. That is a good question, I agree. Maybe you haven’t seen wikipedia in recent times appealing for donations. They do this because they are actually running out of space and need to buy more. This happens because there is a lot of stuff on wikipedia and some of it is neither helpful nor necessary. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a substitute for the whole web.

      1. “Helpful” and “necessary” are subjective terms here. Something that is not helpful or necessary to you might be very helpful and necessary to me.

  21. I stopped taking Wikipedia “editors” seriously when I noticed the frequency with which downright abominable spelling, grammar, syntax, and style goes uncorrected on Wikipedia.

    In spite of its ambitions and self-image, Wikipedia really is an amateur operation from top to bottom, and that fact shows upon the slightest of scratchings of the surface. “Deletionism” is but one of many symptoms.

  22. I’ve spent all day trying to figure out what to say here. Everytime I come back to this blog, there are more comments to read through, and then before I get to add anything, something interrupts and I have to leave the computer.
    I think it’s great that everybody has been reasonably polite to Deb (thank you, Kathleen), and Deb herself has been fairly civilised as well. (I hope we don’t all get expelled from the internet for being too nice.)
    .
    I don’t know very much about how Wikipedia works. I’ve often considered correcting some of the articles I’ve seen, not just the obvious factual errors I’ve encountered, but also the incompetent writing and lack of basic fluency in English one often finds. But I don’t even know how one is supposed to correct things, and I’ve always been afraid to try. So my ignorance is pretty profound.
    I guess I’m one of these people who doesn’t understand why notability is so important. It’s not like a paper encyclopedia, for which additional material drives up printing costs and takes up shelf space. Does Wikipedia have a central database with limited memory where they store everything? Or is it all dispersed throughout the world? (I’m very internet-ignorant. Sorry.) Why can’t you include nearly everything?
    One of the things I really love about Wikipedia is reading an article, and then clicking on all the links within it to find more on the subject, and then following more links from there. I love it when there’s more information available– I wish it could be infinite. I get really annoyed when I’ve gone through all the links shown and there’s no more information about the topic.
    .
    I just realised that after thinking about this all day, I had nothing really to add to this debate.
    .
    If anyone is still unsure of the notability of R. Garcia y Robertson, he wrote a great story called ‘Gypsy Trade’ in the November 1992 issue of Asimov’s Science Fiction Magazine.
    And in Spanish-language cultures, the first surname is the important one, and people are alphabatised accordingly. That’s why you find him listed under Garcia, not Robertson

    1. And in Spanish-language cultures, the first surname is the important one, and people are alphabatised accordingly.

      I suspect this is why certain people have embarassed themselves on this topic.

    2. I guess I’m one of these people who doesn’t understand why notability is so important…. Why can’t you include nearly everything?
      Luigi Novi: Because then it’s not an encyclopedia, but a phone book.
      .
      An encyclopedia is a reference work for general knowledge, and as such, having everything in it goes far beyond its mission.

      1. But the way Wikipedia is designed, you can have an article that just includes the general outline of a subject, but with links to other articles which feature aspects of the subject in greater detail, which in turn have links to more specific articles, linked to other, even more specific articles. That’s the beauty of having an encyclopedia on a computer– you CAN include everything without the details overwhelming the big picture.

      2. Luigi Novi: Because then it’s not an encyclopedia, but a phone book
        .
        So? What’s wrong with phone books? They’re reference volumes.
        .
        Tell me, Luigi: How would you feel if you flipped through the new edition of the phone book, found your number was no longer there, checked with the phone company and were informed that nine total strangers had decided you weren’t important enough to be in it?
        .
        PAD

      3. Mary Warner: That’s the beauty of having an encyclopedia on a computer– you CAN include everything without the details overwhelming the big picture.
        Luigi Novi: Only if by “everything” you mean subjects of note. It’s silly to argue that there should be, for example, an article on my cat. There are plenty of other websites and hosting services for stuff like that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which has nothing to do with that sort of thing. Honestly, if hypothetically all the other barriers aside from this that keep Britannica and other encyclopedias from including “everything” were somehow removed (paper, space, cost, updating, etc.), do you really think Britannica would create entries on EVERYTHING? C’mon, Mary. You know they wouldn’t. It would be crap.
        .
        Peter David: So? What’s wrong with phone books? They’re reference volumes.
        Luigi Novi: See, Peter, it’s when you make such incoherent arguments as this–when I know that you normally do not–it’s when it becomes too obvious that your feelings about Wikipedia have nothing to do with the validity of its policies, or even a narrow group of editors you name, but your own poutiness over not having ensured Kristian’s article last year. The issue is not that there’s something “wrong” with phone books. The issue is that Wikipedia is not one. It does have several sister projects (WikiBooks, Wiktionary, WikiNews, WikiSpecies, WikiQuote, Wikimedia Commons, etc.), and who knows, maybe it will create a phone book (assuming that people listed don’t have a problem with being listed on it, given the current anxieties over privacy, identity theft, etc.), but so far, it has not yet done so, and it’s specious to argue that the encyclopedia should be turned into one.
        .
        It’s silly that I have to tell you this, because you know that this response by you is the argumentative equivalent of a screen door on a submarine, but hey, if you want to make pointing this out necessary, then cool beans, brother.
        .
        Peter David: Tell me, Luigi: How would you feel if you flipped through the new edition of the phone book, found your number was no longer there, checked with the phone company and were informed that nine total strangers had decided you weren’t important enough to be in it?
        Luigi Novi: I would inform the phone company that they should stick to printing phone books, and leave šhìŧŧÿ analogies to you.
        .
        Seriously, though, if you want me refute another badly thought-out comment that isn’t based on the reality of the situation, but on your own bias-fueled distortions, hey, what the hëll, I have a minute or two more to spare:
        .
        Assuming, for the sake of your hypothesis, that I wanted to be in the phone book, I would ask the phone company to explain their decision to me, and weigh their explanation against the foundation of certain principles such as: 1. Their policies, and the wisdom of them, 2. Whether their decision constitutes a proper, logical, consistent, interpretation/implementation of those policies, 3. Whether their decision is based at all on any falsehoods or mistakes they have made (i.e.: “No, I live on Avon Street, which is next to Harper Collins Avenue. You’re thinking of the Avon Street in three towns over..”). If it was, and I corrected them, presumably they would accept my correction, and reverse their decision. If I complained that nine strangers said I wasn’t important enough, the rep on the phone would explain to me that no, that’s not what happened; what happened was, the nine people were properly following a policy, and moved to not include me because they mistakenly though I lived in a different town, and not because I wasn’t “important” enough. This is what happened with this Wikipedia flap. Proper policies were cited and followed, but the move to delete was negated because someone made a mistake, and did not spend as much time as she could’ve/should’ve double-checking before nominating, and she accepted the correction. The situation is complicated by the fact that Deb made an error, and was less-than-circumspect in both double-checking before the fact, and not as immediately after she was corrected as she could’ve, but that doesn’t change the fact that the policy (one more time for the cheap seats) has nothing to do with editors’ judgments of “importance”. It has to do with the presence in articles of reliable, third-party, independent sources to establish notability. Period. Nothing more.
        .
        When I nominated Lily Collins for deletion, I merely asked for this same thing, because the sources I could find myself (and I did look), or which were in the article, did not establish this. Some may have thought I had some personal mad-on against her. I didn’t. I simply wanted to point out that if sources existed that did establish her notability, they were not in the article, and needed to be placed there. They eventually were, the article was kept, and believe it or not, I was really fine with that. I even told you as much by email when it was kept.
        .
        The insistence that nominating for deletion is a “judgment”, personal or otherwise, about “importance”, stems from your imagination, and not reality. Deb made some errors, but making some errors and having a personal bias are not the same thing.
        .
        Have I answered your question?

      4. If you detect a snippy attitude, I would say that it stems from a very simple cause:
        .
        Peter, who normally exhibits a level of detachment, objectivity, rationality and consistency, even with respect to issues that he is sometimes personally involved in, has thrown those traits right out the nearest window on this one, and is expressing viewpoints which are dishonestly reasoned, and stem from personal irritation rather than the calm, reasoned analysis he normally does. This includes:
        .
        1. Mischaracterizing perfectly sound policies of a website, and persistently–in the Kristian Ayre discussion last year, in his BID column, and here in this thread, over and over, even after I’ve repeatedly corrected him with the more calm, actual description.
        .
        2. Making false analogies
        .
        3. Making sweeping, absolute generalizations and judgments of a project and its volunteer participants, who simply trying to create something good for the world, permanently condemning both, without anything resembling a balanced analysis, based solely on his personal bad experiences, which I strongly suspect he wouldn’t do with any other volunteer project or website if those experiences were not part of the equation.
        .
        When you consider the very hard work that a lot of intelligent, thoughtful volunteers put into the project, donating their time, research, writing, photography, etc., and the fact that Peter is acquainted with at least one of them–me–to write them all off with a dismissive wave, as he has done, strikes me as uncharacteristic of the man that I’ve come to expect better from.

      5. If you detect a snippy attitude, I would say that it stems from a very simple cause: Peter, who normally exhibits a level of detachment, objectivity, rationality and consistency, even with respect to issues that he is sometimes personally involved in, has thrown those traits right out the nearest window on this one, and is expressing viewpoints which are dishonestly reasoned, and stem from personal irritation rather than the calm, reasoned analysis he normally does.
        .
        No, Luigi. I’m behaving the exact same way I always do. The problem is that you’ve got so much of yourself invested in this that YOU are the one who is losing YOUR detachment. You’re not acknowledging what is plain to pretty much everyone else: There are people on Wikipedia who are acting like power-mad jerks with research capabilities that are below even the most minimal standards that the average Internet denizen could command, much less people who purport to be experts. At the very least, that’s how they’re coming across to people both inside and outside of Wikipedia.
        .
        So it would be like a phone book with many more listings. Fine. I don’t care. Most people don’t care. The problem is that you care, but the bigger problem is that you haven’t come close to convincing anyone else that they should, and you are indeed getting increasingly snippy about it to boot.
        .
        PAD

      6. Peter David: No, Luigi. I’m behaving the exact same way I always do.
        Luigi Novi: No, you’re not, and the fact that you persistently distort the position of those you disagree with is what illustrates it. A person who is right responds to their opponent on the basis of what their actual position is, adheres to principles consistently, and employs arguments characterized by consistency and reason. You have not done this, I’ve illustrated in detail how, and I notice that you haven’t responded to really refute anything I’ve said by way of my reasoning or counterarguments, aside from knee-jerk denials.
        .
        The fact remains that you’re the one too invested in what happened to describe this matter objectively and honestly. Me, I’ve gone on the record here as someone who is able to see the good and the bad about Wikipedia, able to distinguish between good articles and bad, between good policies and bad ones, between good implementation of them and lackthereof, and between ways in which Deb was right and in which she was wrong. That’s an important indicator of my objectivity in this matter. You haven’t displayed that.
        .
        Peter David: The problem is that you care, but the bigger problem is that you haven’t come close to convincing anyone else that they should…
        Luigi Novi: First of all, this conflict, like any other, should be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence or reasoning offered by each side. Appealing to the crowd may be a nice populist tactic, but it does not decide issues of truth or rightness. Second, you are not qualified to speak for everyone here, and are just trying to shroud yourself with the crowd because you know you can’t refute anything I’ve said in this thread. And that’s unfortunate, because usually, you’re capable of much better than that.
        .
        Peter David: …and you are indeed getting increasingly snippy about it to boot.
        Luigi Novi: And in overgeneralizing and dismissing a large group of people–behavior that in any other case you would condemn in others–and refusing to distinguish between people who do good work and those who do not, simply because you felt personally slighted, you provide the reason for this.

      7. Luigi, I think you’ve had some good points here. I agree with you about some of the stuff supporting Wikipedia.
        .
        However, I think PAD’s right on one thing. You are getting a little worked up over this. Reading your posts, it does feel like you’re overly invested in this.

      8. Luigi, you really need to get a grip.
        .
        I don’t need to refute or rebut anything you’ve said because none of it changes anything. I had personal exposure to these people in the matter of Kristian’s article. They acted like pompous fools steeped in ignorance. Kevin had personal exposure to these people in the article about Garcia. They acted like pompous fools steeped in ignorance. Saying that it’s because neither of us are heavily into the Wikipedia community is irrelevant since there are people who ARE in the WIkipedia community who can’t stand the deletionist mentality either. It’s not as if I had preconceived notions and the Deletionists fed into them. I came into it with an open mind and was appalled at what I encountered. That’s their fault, not mine.
        .
        PAD

  23. First off who are these guys to say what can and cannot be on Wiki??? Some people like up and coming actors and writers find it a useful that people can use to check them out when their trying to get work.

    1. Okay – here’s where i take what may look like an opposite tack to my previous posts:
      .
      “…these guys…” are (some of) the people who (theoretically, at least) maintain what little semblance of accuracy and organisation Wikipedia has.
      .
      And Wikipedia is not there to be an unpaid Central Casting or unofficial struggling authors’ PR bureau.
      .
      Obviously, you understand Wikipedia even less well than Deb understands basic research methodologies…

    2. Josh Pritchett: First off who are these guys to say what can and cannot be on Wiki???
      Luigi Novi: They’re the people who try to follow its policies that facilitate making a better encyclopedia. And its those policies and their implementation that are the relevant criteria, and not the personhood of the people following them.
      .
      Josh Pritchett: Some people like up and coming actors and writers find it a useful that people can use to check them out when their trying to get work.
      Luigi Novi: That’s not the purpose of an encyclopedia, and never has been. Again, why complain about the editors who maintain the site if you’re not even going to discuss the matter in terms of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be, or the fact that Wikimedia Foundation, as a private charitable organization, has decided that that’s what they were creating, and has merely created guidelines to maintain it?
      .
      Yeah, a resource for up-and-coming artists would be great. But why does that idea have to be grafted onto someone else’s idea for a completely unrelated thing?
      .
      It’s when I read this sort of shoddy reasoning that I find myself particularly unimpressed when Peter acts like my “failure” to convince anyone else in this thread really means anything about the wisdom or validity of my position.

      1. While it might not be a stated goal, the general public’s image of Wikipedia, I think, is as a repository of all knowledge. Hence crowd sourcing the writing instead of paying experts…you get articles written on topics no one would pay for and increase the breadth of knowledge covered. Perhaps Wikipedia should be more upfront about only covering what the moderators consider important?

        Also, paralleling things, this is Peter’s site and when you come here, you have to operate under the understood rules (just like Wikipedia!) and if you flaunt the rules of decorum, you have to be prepared for the Cowboy to come with his six shooter.

        If you disagree with his position and try to convince him and he finds your reasoning doesn’t meet community standards…Well, it’s his house and he makes the rules.

    1. If an editor or admin regularly abuses their authority, they can be de-admined or blocked from the site altogether. That determination is up to the other editors/admins, though.

    1. Although in all honesty, who ever did alert her should be thanked. It was nice to hear her side (even if I don’t agree with it). This has ended up being one of the most interesting comments section in PAD’s blog in some time.

  24. Basically, this is the same argument about Wikipedia that has been had before — it is unreliable because of the amateur way it is run. Until Wikipedia hires professional editors and writers for the site, it will continue to be unreliable.
    .
    I see above that Luigi Novi has quoted the error ratio comparing science articles in Wikipedia to Britannica. These are the numbers that were often quoted several (5?) years ago. They may be accurate, but they are about the scientific articles, not about all articles in general. We’ve all heard about the altering of political articles to “revise” the truth. And we’ve heard about personal attacks generated by scummy individuals. These things make every article at Wikipedia subject to skepticism.

    1. The thing is, Wiki will never hire professional editors or writers, because that defeats the whole stated purpose of a completely open-source, fair-use encyclopedia.

      1. It may not hire them, but a number of editors on Wikipedia are experts, such as in the academic articles.

  25. What I suspect is going to happen with Wikipedia in the next few years is that it is going to get bigger, become more influential, and will then be sold for a humongous amount of money. And all the people who have volunteered all their time and energy will get jack spit for their efforts.

      1. I wonder if that may have anything to do with articles that are not “noteworthy” being deleted?
        .
        I know that I tried to add an article regarding Living Greyhawk – Veluna, a published game setting that I was both a writer and editor (and promoter) for. I filled it with citations and references and links. I spent a good week compiling the necessary links and spent about 14 hours typing it all up. And, less than two weeks later when I went to update one of the links, I found it had been deleted for not being important.
        .
        Now, I will agree that it was more than a little bit dumb of me to do all that and not keep the notes on my personal hard drive. But, the end result is that I saw no reason to ever consider adding a new article again. If I happen upon something that I know is wrong, I’ll edit and cite. But the experience made me wonder what the point was of adding to the repository if someone else is going to judge the importance of my article without ever bothering to contact me regarding it.
        .
        Now, on the other hand, I was involved in the discussion on whether or not to delete the “Hëll In The Cell (WWE)” article and was pleased to see that in the end it remained.
        .
        But, related to this discussion, one thing that struck me during the Hëll in the Cell deletion discussion is that the admins clearly didn’t know what the difference was between the Cell and a normal cage match. Even though the article, itself, included the distinction.
        .
        That made me wonder if the editors bothered to read the articles that they nominated for deletion. And, I have to say that the discussion here so far has not been reassuring to me.
        .
        Theno

      2. Well, Theno, maybe that’s why–as Luigi says–article creation peaked some time ago. Maybe people got sick of creating articles and seeing them dumped days later.
        .
        PAD

      3. Thenodrin: I wonder if that may have anything to do with articles that are not “noteworthy” being deleted?
        Luigi Novi: I doubt it. There’s probably a logical ceiling for growth of new article at the rate Wikipedia experienced for the past few years, dictated by both the number of potential new users, and the number of topics that merited an article and didn’t already have one. People are always going to create articles for topics that merit them and do not merit them, so I doubt it’s because of disillusionment.

      4. “There’s probably a logical ceiling for growth of new article at the rate Wikipedia experienced for the past few years, dictated by both the number of potential new users, and the number of topics that merited an article and didn’t already have one.”
        .
        But, who decides what merits an article and what doesn’t? Where is the distinction published so that contributors can know the difference?
        .
        There is a page for Paradigm Press’s Arcanis D&D setting, but not one for Thenodrin Presents’ Fellowship of the White Star D&D setting (for example). One reason for this is because of my personal apathy considering Wikipedia. The distasteful manner in which my contribution for Living Greyhawk – Veluna was deleted means that I see little reason to write up one for FWS.
        .
        And, while you think that deleting articles of low merit (in the opinions of certain, specific people) does not contribute to the plateau of new article submissions, I think that it does.
        .
        Which brings us back to the basic premise of who determines what is and what is not “notable” in a publically accessible repository built and edited by the public. It brings us back to the accusation of arrogance on the part of certain editors. And is really at the very essence of the question: “Just because you have never heard of something, does that mean that no one should learn about it?”
        .
        Theno

  26. Luigi Novi: No, that’s a separate issue. The sources were brought up on the talk page. If they had simply been placed in the article, it would’ve been fine.

    Then why didn’t Deb tell them to put them in the article? Referenced. Web links. End of argument.

    The problem here is that, despite your insistence, is that Deb was NOT acting properly as a Wiki admin type OR as a researcher. You can’t have it both ways. The brouhaha could have been headed off in a number of different ways, being a stronger researcher OR administrator.

    1. Deb doesn’t have to tell them to put them in the article. They could’ve done that themselves. She would’ve objected, of course, but again, remember that they corrected her, and she accepted their correction.

      1. Deb doesn’t have to tell them to put them in the article.

        This, of course, is part of the problem.

        Given that there’s confusion on how people should correct Wiki and source that correction, I think Deb SHOULD be telling them. If you don’t tell people that they should be putting linked sources in their articles and/or corrections, then they won’t know to do it.

  27. As somebody who’s seen the entry for his sports site on Wikipedia get the axe, I actually understand and appreciate Deb’s perspective.

    Is the Wiki system perfect? Of course not. No system governing a massive amount of information (and/or people) will ever be perfect. But I feel like Deb’s explanation is understandable and fair, and based on what she is saying I do not see her as being a villainous WikiForce.

    The system could be better, but it could also be much, much worse.

  28. Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way. Perhaps we should just accept the fact that the editors at Wicked-Pedia are superior beings to us mere mortals, and we should just accept their decisions as being law.

      1. Or, you could sign up and begin editing, in order to also declare yourself a superior being.
        .
        Just joking… maybe? 😉

  29. I suspect that a lot of what is rankling people about Deb’s attitude is her position that she is within her rights and being entirely reasonable to designate any article or statement as insignificant or inaccurate without even the smallest amount of research on her own part.

  30. (I’m sorry to break my relatively basic comment into two parts. My keyboard started misbehaving and I had to log off.)

    Before stigmatizing or amputating any content which seems doubtful, it is no more than basic courtesy and scholarship to get up off one’s ášš and research the matter. Random synaptic misfires do not make evidence. If Avon or Tor were a vanity press (which they very obviously are not) there would be some reliable reference saying so. Deb is no more in the right than I if I were to declare (because of personal animus, mental disorder or pharmaceuticals) that she is Leviathan and must be shunned by right-thinking people. Even without doing some primary research, I can guess this may be inaccurate. My personal whim is not a good measure of truth. Neither is hers.

    1. Out of Context fun:

      “[Deb} is Leviathan and must be shunned by right-thinking people.”

  31. Luigi Novi,
    “That’s not the purpose of an encyclopedia, and never has been. Again, why complain about the editors who maintain the site if you’re not even going to discuss the matter in terms of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be, or the fact that Wikimedia Foundation, as a private charitable organization, has decided that that’s what they were creating, and has merely created guidelines to maintain it?”
    .
    Good question. After examining the entire discussion – and reading the delete conversations – I feel Luigi and Wikipedia are both getting bad raps here. There are guidelines for something to be notable enough to be included – which is as it should be. As Luigi says, this is a charitable organization with limited funds. therefore the amount of entries they can support is finite. All he – and they – are asking is that people follow the guidelines.
    .
    Why is this so hard? But instead of following simple rules, there has been a pack mentality that has rushed to bash one of the more intelligent, reasoned individuals on this board and a resource I would say most of us enjoy the benefit of.
    .
    And it basically comes down to people who seemingly have the time, effort and energy to bìŧçh about the unfairness of it all. Which is especially ludicrous seeing as how the Rod Garcia entry was not deleted – Deb’s sloppy research notwithstanding – which means the system worked.
    .
    And Kristian’s entry would not have been deleted had those who asked been given the third-person sources which they asked for. If PAD has those in his possession as he claims, he could easily get the page reinstated.
    .
    And Thenodrin, if you don’t want to waste your time on another entry, why not simply ASK Luigi what the standards would be to prevent that from happening.
    .
    Really. What is the problem?

    1. And Kristian’s entry would not have been deleted had those who asked been given the third-person sources which they asked for. If PAD has those in his possession as he claims, he could easily get the page reinstated.
      .
      I actually did provide third party references. They refused to accept them because they were on line, and I was informed that on-line sources are notoriously unreliable (as noted, a genuinely ironic comment). I them referred to columns I wrote. They refused to accept them because I had written them. (Keep in mind I didn’t write Kristian’s entry.) So I wrote a column featuring pull quotes from other actors with whom Kristian had worked and that column was used as a basis to reinstate it.
      .
      The point remains: The original move to yank the article was based upon misinformation. They said Kristian wasn’t notable because “her” entire resume consisted of a minor role on a TV series that went one season and ‘she’ did some voice work in an animated film, and that was the extent of ‘her’ resume. I said, “No, ‘she’ had a co-starring role, it ran two seasons, not one, ‘she’ also had starring or co-starring roles in a number of movies and, oh by the way, she’s a guy.” Yet the people who made the mistakes refused to acknowledge them, even though the foundation upon which all their initial protests for the article were demonstrably wrong. The vote was then designed to get a “consensus” which wasn’t reached, and they yanked it anyway.
      .
      That is the problem.
      .
      PAD

    2. “And Thenodrin, if you don’t want to waste your time on another entry, why not simply ASK Luigi what the standards would be to prevent that from happening.

      .
      The problem is that I shouldn’t have to ask Luigi or Deb what the standards are. I should be able to go to the Wikipedia site, ask it what the standards are, and those standards be upheld.
      .
      According to the site’s various essays on new articles and on deleting articles, the standards are basically: If it is not already written about, feel free to make a new page. And, if you think it should be deleted first go through a series of checklists.
      .
      Both examples cited in this discussion involved motions to delete that should have been (according to the published Wikipedia standards) requests for citations and clarifications.
      .
      Instead, there was a move to delete.
      .
      So, the problem is that Deletionists are using the delete process rather than the cite sources process. They appear to be attempting to circumvent one process in order to move directly to deletion (because, if there isn’t any discussion in five days, then the article gets deleted). And, since there is a process to request sources and clarification, and clean-ups, it leaves one to wonder what the motivation is behind going directly to deletion.
      .
      Deb says that the process worked because the article about Garcia wasn’t deleted. But, I say that the process did not work because it shouldn’t have been nominated for deletion in the first place. Not only because her premise was completely wrong, but also because the Wiki site says to give the benefit of the doubt and ask for information before nominating an article for deletion in the first place.
      .
      Theno

  32. “…this is a charitable organization with limited funds. therefore the amount of entries they can support is finite.”
    .
    Then it is NOT an encyclopedia. It’s a half-assed semi-encyclopedia covering subjects limited by the likes and dislikes of the editors.

  33. The problem here is an issue of the expertise of the contributors and editors.

    As someone who writes and researches as part of my job, I agree that proper citation is important in research. I understand an editor’s skepticism of an article that lacks citation.

    That said–having someone who has never heard of Avon or Tor editing entries on science fiction authors is like having someone who has never heard of Spain editing entries on European history. “Please find citations to back up the existence of this so-called ‘Spanish Armada,’ they might write.”

    Yes, things need to be cited. But professionals don’t have to cite everything, either. In professional research, one can mention basic things without having to cite them. I can mention Einstein was a notable physicist, for example, or that 20th Century Fox makes movies, without having to cite a source.

    And within Science Fiction publishing, the fact that Avon and Tor are real presses is as obvious and well known as the fact that Fox makes movies.

    It seems if Wikipedia editors would stick to editing things they know about, it might prevent a lot of problems. If you don’t know enough about science fiction to recognize Avon or Tor, you really should not be editing the entries. You simply can’t be taken seriously as part of the discussion. I’ve got to believe the Internet is not lacking science fiction fans willing to edit such entries.

  34. Thenodrin,
    “So, the problem is that Deletionists are using the delete process rather than the cite sources process. They appear to be attempting to circumvent one process in order to move directly to deletion (because, if there isn’t any discussion in five days, then the article gets deleted). And, since there is a process to request sources and clarification, and clean-ups, it leaves one to wonder what the motivation is behind going directly to deletion.”
    .
    very good point.

  35. It pains me to say it, but PAD is completely right and those disagreeing with him here are ignorant twits. This also applies to Alan Coil on general principle.

  36. So what we have here is Deb, a lazy, clumsy, incapable, incompetent, apparently blind in one eye researcher deciding that an article should go because her lousy research couldn’t turn up anything on publishers Avon or Tor. Actually, research seems too strong a word, since Deb considers sifting through the shallow recesses of her brain and coming up empty to be sufficient grounds to delete an entry.

    Her defence is that because we’re not involved in Wikipedia, we can’t understand the rationale behind such half-witted behaviour. Having painted the Wiki community as people being as useless and destructive as she is herself, she also insinuates that if we were part of her community, we would be content with her low standards as well.

Comments are closed.