Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Venturism: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Datapacrat (talk | contribs) |
Datapacrat (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:::That analogy does not apply in this particular case. Along with sources outside the fields of cryonics or transhumanism, the article contains citations from a wide variety of transhumanist and cryonics organization websites and newsgroups. Your analogy would be more like the [[Catholic Church]] article citing references from a wide variety of Christian organizations and newsgroups. --Ben Best 03:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
:::That analogy does not apply in this particular case. Along with sources outside the fields of cryonics or transhumanism, the article contains citations from a wide variety of transhumanist and cryonics organization websites and newsgroups. Your analogy would be more like the [[Catholic Church]] article citing references from a wide variety of Christian organizations and newsgroups. --Ben Best 03:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''':I don't see the problem. If there are issues with the sources, start a discussion on improving them. Marking it for deletion 15 minutes after it was created implies it is considered spam which is certainly not the case. I follow cryonics issues and this society has existed for years and has been in the news recently. I didn't look much at the listed sources, but they certainly exist...give people a chance to add them. Also Kim Suozzi does relate...as the article states, she was recently cryopreserved because of funds raised by the society. [[User:Symmetric|Symmetric]] ([[User talk:Symmetric|talk]]) 07:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''':I don't see the problem. If there are issues with the sources, start a discussion on improving them. Marking it for deletion 15 minutes after it was created implies it is considered spam which is certainly not the case. I follow cryonics issues and this society has existed for years and has been in the news recently. I didn't look much at the listed sources, but they certainly exist...give people a chance to add them. Also Kim Suozzi does relate...as the article states, she was recently cryopreserved because of funds raised by the society. [[User:Symmetric|Symmetric]] ([[User talk:Symmetric|talk]]) 07:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep' |
*'''Keep': I'm not a Venturist, but have been keeping a close eye on them for, oh, half a year or so. I've seen plenty of Wikipedia articles with worse sourcing. If the deletionist feels the multiple non-Venturist sources in this article are insufficient, then the obvious solution isn't to delete the whole article, it's to add more sources. [[User:Datapacrat|DataPacRat]] ([[User talk:Datapacrat|talk]]) 08:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 08:18, 11 February 2013
- Society for Venturism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Though at first glance extremely-well-sourced, this article in fact is not. Sources are either affiliated with the subject, have no bearing whatsoever on the gist of the article, or are otherwise biased or unreliable. Notability is definitely not established by outside sources. The only reliably-sourced episode covered by the article, regarding a woman named Kim Suozzi, does not directly relate to the article subject. dci | TALK 01:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: The sources based on news publications are not the only ones that are reliable. The cryonics and transhumanist organization websites, publications, and news groups are reliable unless you consider cryonics an unworthy subject. Wikipedia has an entry on cryonics as well as many entries on cryonics organizations. Cryonics organizations are part of modern life, and should be covered by Wikipedia. --Ben Best 01:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do not deny that cryonics is a perfectly notable field. However, pages of organizations related to a particular subject do not ascertain the particular subject's notability. For example, the Catholic Church article would be in trouble if it relied entirely on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website. dci | TALK 01:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- That analogy does not apply in this particular case. Along with sources outside the fields of cryonics or transhumanism, the article contains citations from a wide variety of transhumanist and cryonics organization websites and newsgroups. Your analogy would be more like the Catholic Church article citing references from a wide variety of Christian organizations and newsgroups. --Ben Best 03:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do not deny that cryonics is a perfectly notable field. However, pages of organizations related to a particular subject do not ascertain the particular subject's notability. For example, the Catholic Church article would be in trouble if it relied entirely on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website. dci | TALK 01:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep:I don't see the problem. If there are issues with the sources, start a discussion on improving them. Marking it for deletion 15 minutes after it was created implies it is considered spam which is certainly not the case. I follow cryonics issues and this society has existed for years and has been in the news recently. I didn't look much at the listed sources, but they certainly exist...give people a chance to add them. Also Kim Suozzi does relate...as the article states, she was recently cryopreserved because of funds raised by the society. Symmetric (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: I'm not a Venturist, but have been keeping a close eye on them for, oh, half a year or so. I've seen plenty of Wikipedia articles with worse sourcing. If the deletionist feels the multiple non-Venturist sources in this article are insufficient, then the obvious solution isn't to delete the whole article, it's to add more sources. DataPacRat (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)