The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The question of whether to merge or redirect is open to discussion in the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RationalWiki[edit]

RationalWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable standalone notability. Likely any secondary sources for this site would be related in one way or another to conservapedia, where it is already mentioned. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That page has been a redirect to the Conservapedia article through most of its history, and discussion on the talk page has suggested restoring it to redirect status rather than standalone article. What is the rationale for deleting it outright? ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if the consensus is to redirect, then this discussion can be closed. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Admin: User:Lulaq is counted twice in the AfD Statistics. Is there something wrong with the software? Can we get this corrected? Thank you. nobs (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD processes are not decided on vote counts, but my the merits of each side's argument. If there's a toolserver problem you'd better tell them. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Secondary sources noted in article. RationalWiki is not some sort of subsidiary of Conservapedia. It is its own Wiki. Lulaq (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it is its own Wiki is irrelevant. This is, at best, a non-argument. All Wikis are their own. As stated in the nom, the secondary source is simply tied to Conservapedia. Not to mention that it is just being reused in this article. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redirect to Conservapedia#RationalWiki. ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as stand-alone article per LA Times article cited (It's on page 3, linked here), and per coverage by ever-keen wiki-watchers The Telegraph here. It's weak but probably sufficient. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or delete conservapedia. Rationalwiki has three times more weekly active users on average. Alain Dien (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Nx / talk 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, Delete until RW pulls a stunt like translating the bible in liberalese or pushing for the impeachment of the dalai lama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alain Dien (talk • contribs) 15:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RationalWiki's Alexia ranking is over 100,000 whereas Conservapedia is less than 100,000, and lower numbers mean more visitors. Just thought I'd throw that out there. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ALEXA: "Alexa rankings do not reflect encyclopedic notability and existence of reliable source material if so." What counts is whether or not there are Reliable Sources about the subject, not how many visitors it attracts. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Conservapedia subsection at best. If we look at Wikipedia:Notability_(web) then it says stuff like subject of "multiple non-trivial published works" or that the "website or content has won a well-known and independent award" or that the "content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". In summary this Web site has not been subject of multiple non-trivial coverage, it has not won awards and it is not published elsewhere. (I am not a RW or CP editor). Ttiotsw (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no redirect — The first source in the article is primary, the second is a secondary reliable source but is a mention in a story about a different subject. I can't find any significant coverage as required by wp:gng. A redirect to Conservapedia wouldn't make much sense because they are not the same thing. If we simply delete, then a WP search on RationalWiki will come up with nothing, but Conservapedia will be the first in the list of articles mentioning RationalWiki. Rees11 (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and/or Delete. Non-notable. (Disclosure: I am both a RationalWiki & Conservapedia & sysop. FWIW I don't know if my vote counts. Thank you). nobs (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Weaseloid (with or without first deleting). -R. fiend (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and/or delete. Not notable enough for its own article (the LA Times covers RationalWiki at least briefly, the source that was brought up here is interesting, but doesn't really say anything about the site and so doesn't really help at this point), but I'd guess a redirect to Conservapedia#RationalWiki (as it had been before its out-of-the-blue resurrection) could make sense, reasoning through the LA Times article that also acts as the main source for that section. (In the name of disclosure for this discussion: I've been a RationalWiki member since its beginnings.) --Sid 3050 (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - But failing that, do not use a redirect; describing a wiki only insofar as it opposes another wiki presents too limited a view to justify the redirect proposed. Existing sources (including the L.A. Times and Telegraph link) are just enough to justify inclusion in my book, but if they aren't, I see no argument for maintaining the redirect either. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for the redirect is that the article on Conservapedia contains some content about RationalWiki. If there is insufficient content to justify keeping RW as a separate article, it is appropriate to redirect to another page containing relevant content as the next best option. ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is where it has notability sufficient to warrant a mention on the Conservapedia article. Presumably notable criticism of Conservapedia should source from notable individuals and organizations. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if it fails for notability reasons, then its criticisms fail as well. It doesn't seem likely that readers would be wanting the Conservapedia article when typing Rationalwiki in the search box. Beach drifter (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section in the Conservapedia article is not about criticism by RationalWiki, and RationalWiki is not used as a source for it. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Trivial mentions in a couple of news articles about Conservapedia does not make this the subject of significant coverage in its own right. No redirect, just delete. Clinchfield (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Conservapedia It obviously fails to meet basic notability requirements, but a redirect to CP makes a lot of sense. While there are not enough verifiable sources to create an article, there are plenty of mentions of RW in solid sources about CP. There is material about RW on the CP article. Redirects do not have the same notability criteria of an article, and this issue has been hashed out many times before. Revert to the status quo. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Conservapedia I see no reason this can't be redirected to the RationalWiki section of Conservapedia. I've looked for sources, but they're not out there. AniMate 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to being probably the best source of Lenski <> Conservapedia/Schlafly related material, RationalWiki is credited as a source for three internet "laws" (Scopie's law; Pommer's law and DeMeyer's law) as well as being consistently second reference on Google for Poe's law (after Wikipedia). (Declaration of interest: I am a member of RationalWiki) SpeckledHen (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It may be the best or most verbose Lenski source (I didn't really follow it and didn't check the coverage on other sites, but I'll take your word for it), but not a Reliable Source, and the Reliable Sources about Lenski don't mention RW, I think. (I didn't really check in-depth, but I figure such sources would have been brought up by now if they were there.) Right now the lack of Reliable Sources is the dealbreaker. Few people are denying that RW is the best site on the Internet (=P), but following the notability and sourcing rules, there is too little to establish it beyond "It exists." right now. The second source is nice (and will potentially be useful later), but it doesn't really say anything about the site, which is what is needed here (if I understand things correctly). --Sid 3050 (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will toss in a comment here as well, I am obviously a supporter and fan of RW, I wouldn't shell out $50 a month to keep its pulse going if I wasn't. Not having an article on WP is not anti-RW, in fact it is beneficial in that there is not enough material written by sources that are accepted at WP to create an accurate article. RW is not helped by having an inaccurate and incomplete article on WP. If the time comes that there are multiple sources that can construct an accurate and relatively complete profile of the site and its history then it will have an article. There are however side mentions of RW in several accepted sources. A lot of that material is included in the CP article. Therefore, the RW article should redirect to the location of the material about RW that is on WP. Hence my vote to just revert back to the status quo. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you the owner of RationalWiki? Sounds like self promotion. nobs (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using words, and they don't mean what you think they mean. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tmt, you and I have always had respectful and civil discussions in the past, you agreed your comment here "doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all," but it still exists on a WP archived talk page. As an influencial RationalWikian, would you be willing to discuss what can be done to alliviate some of these problems in WP, RW & CP? Thank you. nobs (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, as before. RW is a wonderful site (and I'm there too), but so far, reliable sources can say that it's known for Conservapedia criticism and little else; as such, such criticism should be covered in CP article. If and when there will be more material on RW that would justify a stand-alone article about it, then that would be a viable approach. But right now, redirect should suffice. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. RW is simply not notable, in terms of lacking RS data to work from in writing the article. Deletion would kill the history for curious editors, redirection does not. As for what to redirect to, most seem to prefer the section at Conservapedia, but I would like to see other ideas - like rationalism or empiricism, say, or Poe's Law perhaps, or debunkers, if such an article exists, or, to be funny, "creationism deniers". Disclosure, I am the most active editor (user:human) at RW and have been around forever. Huw Powell (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: As most people have already said, there aren't enough reliable sources to write the page, but there's enough of an interesting edit history to make deletion undesirable. None of the solutions are ideal but redirection is the best. --rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 07:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: it may just barely make notability, but clearly it exists on the web. I never much liked wikipedias notability guidelines anyways so grain of salt... --EmersonWhite (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines because it has been mentioned in the news multiple times.[1][2][3][4] I don't consider the mentions to be trivial, either. While Conservapedia may be mentioned first, these articles are ultimately discussing the idea of point-of-view driven Wikipedia alternatives. Being a person that actually looks this kind of thing up on Wikipedia to get a feel for what it's all about sometimes, I'd hate to see that option removed for someone else. The emergence of new wikis is inevitable, and some of them will gain notability. I think this one already has. Macai (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no redirect. RW is simply not notable. There aren't enough reliable sources to write the page. Against redirect for the same reasons I am for a delete. No reason to piggy-back "semi-notability" merely because a site exists to dispute another. --TK-CP (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions to form a redirect are not based the same notability guidelines for an article. Basically, is there material about a topic covered on another page? Does that material meet guidelines for inclusion an in article (I.E. wp:rs)? If so redirect a term to the location where material about that subject can be read. If RW is skirting the line for notability requirements for an article, it more than meets requirements for a redirect to the location information is provided. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would suggest to the Wikipedia Administrators that any direct mention of Rationalwiki, which is not notable as a website, should be removed from the Conservapedia article. That should solve the problem and end this constant, seemingly never-ending slow-dance of bickering to which Wikipedia has been made a very reluctant party to. There-- both "sides" lose something... --TK-CP (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NNC. Also, content proposals for the Conservapedia article should be discussed on Talk:Conservapedia, not in the deletion discussion of a different article. --Sid 3050 (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting viable solutions to the "problem" are completely germain to the issues being discussed here, for the benefit of Wikipedia administrators. Parties here need to act less like "wikilawyers" and be more open to solutions instead of being concerned with their interpretations of procedure. --TK-CP (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed good faith and simply pointed out the policy in case you weren't aware of it (I had to look it up myself to be sure). You are suggesting a major change to an article that is not being discussed here, so that article's talk page is a better place to voice your suggestion.

Especially since this suggestion (remove all mention of RationalWiki from the Conservapedia article) was now voiced by you and Nobs - two Conservapedia sysops. And it's certainly in Conservapedia's interest to not have public mention of vocal critics. Since that has major potential for a COI (just like me defending the inclusion of the section would have such a potential since I'm a first-generation RationalWiki member), it's important to make sound arguments that are based on Wikipedia's rules. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has zero potential for COI. There is no debate, because Rationalwiki is not notable, and that isn't in dispute. My actions here, as one can plainly read, are not for the benefit of any party, but to remove, once and for all, Wikipedia being used as a pawn, an unwilling party to silly bickering. Since RW is not notable, there shouldn't be a need to note it directly in the CP article and therefore a re-direct to CP is nonsensical. There is no reason to piggy-back, bestow in effect "semi-notability", merely because a site exists to dispute another. Wikipedia Administrators have broad latitude to take action(s) to uphold the spirit of this place, which has always taken precedence over the letter of policy. --TK-CP (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to put the troll to bed; he's getting cranky. -R. fiend (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Actually, the debate over whether RW is notable is right here, on this page. Or it should be, but you are dragging another issue here. If you want to purge all mention of RationalWiki from the Conservapedia article, then you should discuss that at Talk:Conservapedia -- Nx / talk 21:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously nothing can be done unless and until Wikipedia Admins, as opposed from those from RW and CP, take the bull by the horns and act, as opposed to admins from non-notable sites arguing their best interests instead of those of Wikipedia. There is nothing to be gained by splitting this over several web-pages except obfuscation of the issue. Nx, are you still an administrator at Rationalwiki along with Tmtoulouse its founder and Sid3050? Isn't that a COI here, to argue in that sites best interests? --TK-CP (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest splitting it over several web pages (and noone aside from you and RobS is doing that), I suggested taking it to the talk page of the relevant article, i.e. Talk:Conservapedia. COI is only a problem if we put RW's interests ahead of Wikipedia's. -- Nx / talk 22:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nx, User:Sid 3050 and nobs are in agreement although the wording somewhat differs, Redirect and/or Delete vs Delete and/or Redirect. This is not reflected in the AfD Statistics link above. I will make the necessary modification. Note to TK-CP: the issue of delete can be revisited pending outcome of discussion on the CP talk page. After all, it then is only a matter of deleting a redirect. nobs (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is veering way off for an AFD page. If you or Rob actually come over to the talk:Conservapedia page to discuss content issues we can address it there. Otherwise lets focus on the specific issues relevant to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmtoulouse (talk • contribs) 03:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tmt, will be at talk/CP pending outcome of this discussion. nobs (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep the LA times article and this article_{(thanks, Macai)} is just enough to satisfy the notability criteria, IMHO. -- Nx / talk 22:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insufficient coverage to merit an article, not notable. Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Conservapedia#RationalWiki; I believe that the site is notable enough to have its fair share of mentioning at Wikipedia, but there is not enough independent coverage of the site itself to establish notability for its own article. Most of the notability established for RationalWiki is directly related to its involvement with Conservapedia, and as such it would be appropriate to have information related to RationalWiki and its correspondence with Conservapedia in the Conservapedia article (as it is now) with a redirect to it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Conservapedia#RationalWiki. A pity, because RW is a good antidote to the hate-filled ignorance of Conservapedia, but there just isn't enough "out there" to establish notability. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.