Mod+ Wikipedia Wants to Delete My Page...

#3
Either that or just change the page title to one that is more suitable for the page content like... "Ben Radford's and Mark Edward's unchallenged emotional rants about an author they don't like."

But seriously tho... I've never gotten involved with Wikipedia, so I'm not sure...
I see that they have a number of possible reasons for deletion. Which reason is cited here?
 
#4
Either that or just change the page title to one that is more suitable for the page content like... "Ben Radford's and Mark Edward's unchallenged emotional rants about an author they don't like."

But seriously tho... I've never gotten involved with Wikipedia, so I'm not sure...
I see that they have a number of possible reasons for deletion. Which reason is cited here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Tsakiris

You would think the page would be deleted on the grounds that it was just set up to harass Alex, but they are saying it's because he isn't famous enough.
 
#5
It looks like the primary basis is that of your notability. I would suggest starting by searching for others of your relative level of notability (ie: podcasters with similar number of subscribers, authors with similar traction on their books) and see if they have active pages that were either suggested for deletion or, even better, survived a deletion attempt.

It looks like they thought you potentially notable enough that they denied a speedy deletion so I assume that give you some shot. I'm not nearly familiar enough with Wikipedia's criteria to know what should constitute sufficient notability.

I don't have much of an interest becoming an wiki editor and getting involved in the process formally, but with my background as a lawyer I could look into it a bit and let you know what I think (not in a professional capacity or in any formal representative manner of course!). Let me know if you'd appreciate my input on this.
 
#14
Notability? I can see that being a rule to some extent so it doesn't become a wiki/Facebook mash-up, but I'd argue if you've got a reasonably successful podcast and have authored at least one published book then why shouldn't he have an article. It's not like we're going to run out of space on the Internet.

That being said, Wikipedia is for lazy people who are stupid enough to believe everything it says. Wikipedia is the knowledge equivalent of fine dining from a trash bin.
 
#15
As other members have already proposed - just let them. There is nothing valuable to lose on your Wiki page - except for skeptics' scornful sentiments. And the increase of the article's length would only mean the prolongation of their onslaught on you. Knowledgeable people are already aware that there is no use watching Wiki for anything (and anyone) even remotely controversial.
 
#17
After reading the comments my reaction is to also let them , as it really isn't a positive contribution to your true character, in fact, it verges on the brink of slander, my hunch is that they will actually beg to have it restored, as it serves more their materialistic purpose of tearing down your character, rather then propping it up.

I would just be happy that they have noticed you enough as a threat
 
#18
Any attempt to answer the criticism re Nancy Weber would only lead to re-editing by the guerrilla skeptics. Because of this you will never get balance. Knee jerk pathological skepticism is a black hole. Better of without it but it is infuriating. The request for deletion is not about Alex's notability it is about the paranormal. It has to be cleansed.
 
#19
One of the big arguments over at Sheldrake's wikipedia page was regarding the opening sentence, specifically whether or not the the socially inept imbeciles-for-editors would allow him to be labeled a biologist. The argument went something like -- Sheldrake hasn't done any research in biology within the past so-and-so number of years, therefore the opening sentence will read, "Rupert Sheldrake is an author, pseudoscientist and researcher of the paranormal..." There are probably over fifty thousand words on his 'talk' page arguing over that introductory sentence and why he can't be called a biologist.

All the while according to Wikipedia, "Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, author and..." Of course, beyond his degree Harris has never worked in the field of neuroscience. To my knowledge, nobody had ever pointed this out in the many words wasted arguing with the lunatics editing Rupert's page. So there you go.
 
#20
One of the big arguments over at Sheldrake's wikipedia page was regarding the opening sentence, specifically whether or not the the socially inept imbeciles-for-editors would allow him to be labeled a biologist. The argument went something like -- Sheldrake hasn't done any research in biology within the past so-and-so number of years, therefore the opening sentence will read, "Rupert Sheldrake is an author, pseudoscientist and researcher of the paranormal..." There are probably over fifty thousand words on his 'talk' page arguing over that introductory sentence and why he can't be called a biologist.

All the while according to Wikipedia, "Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, author and..." Of course, beyond his degree Harris has never worked in the field of neuroscience. To my knowledge, nobody had ever pointed this out in the many words wasted arguing with the lunatics editing Rupert's page. So there you go.
Wikipedia is a quagmire of asshole-editors.

Come to think of it, it is more of a Hydra-of-Assholes; - when you "cut" one asshole down, two new ones grows out - in an never-ending cycle.
 
Top