This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because...
RationalWiki uses the same copyright as Wikipedia, CC-BY-SA. Plus I actually wrote the original page.
159753 (
talk) 16:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Per their
copyrights page, the situation is not at all clear "RationalWiki may include material which is not original content, and this does not necessarily fall under the CC-BY-SA", I would get in touch with the
WP:VRT if you own the copyright just for avoidance of doubt.
Additionally the page currently has only one secondary source at present so it's
WP:NOTABILITY is in question. That is not its own reason for
WP:CSD, but the lack of a
WP:CCS makes this a possible
WP:A7 candidate. If you can prove ownership of the copyright I would suggest working on this in draftspace, per
WP:DRAFTIFY, until you have three independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage, see
WP:GNG. And remember interviews are
WP:PRIMARY.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D10:ED34:8A2B:CE7E (
talk) 16:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The copyright page says that original material is under the CC-BY-SA. Is there any proof that the material actually doesn't originate from RationalWiki?
ObserveOwl (
chit-chat •
my doings) 20:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
An admin has removed the CSD tag. If there are notability concerns, G12 is not the way to go. There's tagging the article with WP:A7 if applicable as mentioned,
PRODding, or draftifying, but I would recommend opening an
AfD discussion to let discussion determine whether it is notable. (Since you are unregistered, you can request such a discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion.)
ObserveOwl (
chit-chat •
my doings) 21:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
User:ObserveOwl I don't like jumping immediately to AFD, even if it is allowed, as that only provides seven days to address any issues. The lack of
WP:CCS means it could be A7d at present, but it doesn't have to be, and there is one secondary source provided, so the subject might plausibly meet GNG even if it doesn't for now. I'm inclined to tag the page to attract the attention of sourcing specialists and see if someone can't fix it. If that doesn't happen after a month or two then an AFD listing will be needed. An alternative option, already suggested above, is to draftify which allows for theoretically unlimited time to fix before submitting.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:287D:BFB4:5CC3:6570 (
talk) 23:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Alright then. Yes, there is no rush to delete articles (
WP:RAPID), but deletion nominations don't always last for seven days; they can be
relisted again sometimes. I would say that deletion nominations of new articles about very recent events are the ones that are the most difficult to get consensus. It is common for new, probably non-notable articles about the Internet (and Internet culture) to get nominated, so chances are someone will nominate it within a month or two anyways. If sources arrive after deletion, we can always
WP:DRV.
ObserveOwl (
chit-chat •
my doings) 23:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
this is an interview, hence
WP:PRIMARY and does not count for notability.
The rest of the current references are all
WP:ABOUTSELF links to various internal pages.
Three independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage are needed for a page to clearly satisfy GNG.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:287D:BFB4:5CC3:6570 (
talk) 23:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
---
I have done a quick google search, and founded some more references;
This we can use in the article with care as
WP:MREL, but it doesn't count for GNG, see
WP:NEWSWEEK.
This is a mixture of primary and secondary with some interview portions but I would say this will probably be accepted though some of the more strict types might not like it.
This is an interview and hence
WP:PRIMARY we can use it but it won't count for
WP:GNG.
Once incorporated into the article there should be a strong case for keeping, though AFD might still go either way, would be nice to have one more unambiguous GNG source to be on the safe side.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDD8:5E1C:3E77:A8E6 (
talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because...
RationalWiki uses the same copyright as Wikipedia, CC-BY-SA. Plus I actually wrote the original page.
159753 (
talk) 16:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Per their
copyrights page, the situation is not at all clear "RationalWiki may include material which is not original content, and this does not necessarily fall under the CC-BY-SA", I would get in touch with the
WP:VRT if you own the copyright just for avoidance of doubt.
Additionally the page currently has only one secondary source at present so it's
WP:NOTABILITY is in question. That is not its own reason for
WP:CSD, but the lack of a
WP:CCS makes this a possible
WP:A7 candidate. If you can prove ownership of the copyright I would suggest working on this in draftspace, per
WP:DRAFTIFY, until you have three independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage, see
WP:GNG. And remember interviews are
WP:PRIMARY.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D10:ED34:8A2B:CE7E (
talk) 16:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The copyright page says that original material is under the CC-BY-SA. Is there any proof that the material actually doesn't originate from RationalWiki?
ObserveOwl (
chit-chat •
my doings) 20:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
An admin has removed the CSD tag. If there are notability concerns, G12 is not the way to go. There's tagging the article with WP:A7 if applicable as mentioned,
PRODding, or draftifying, but I would recommend opening an
AfD discussion to let discussion determine whether it is notable. (Since you are unregistered, you can request such a discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion.)
ObserveOwl (
chit-chat •
my doings) 21:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
User:ObserveOwl I don't like jumping immediately to AFD, even if it is allowed, as that only provides seven days to address any issues. The lack of
WP:CCS means it could be A7d at present, but it doesn't have to be, and there is one secondary source provided, so the subject might plausibly meet GNG even if it doesn't for now. I'm inclined to tag the page to attract the attention of sourcing specialists and see if someone can't fix it. If that doesn't happen after a month or two then an AFD listing will be needed. An alternative option, already suggested above, is to draftify which allows for theoretically unlimited time to fix before submitting.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:287D:BFB4:5CC3:6570 (
talk) 23:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Alright then. Yes, there is no rush to delete articles (
WP:RAPID), but deletion nominations don't always last for seven days; they can be
relisted again sometimes. I would say that deletion nominations of new articles about very recent events are the ones that are the most difficult to get consensus. It is common for new, probably non-notable articles about the Internet (and Internet culture) to get nominated, so chances are someone will nominate it within a month or two anyways. If sources arrive after deletion, we can always
WP:DRV.
ObserveOwl (
chit-chat •
my doings) 23:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
this is an interview, hence
WP:PRIMARY and does not count for notability.
The rest of the current references are all
WP:ABOUTSELF links to various internal pages.
Three independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage are needed for a page to clearly satisfy GNG.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:287D:BFB4:5CC3:6570 (
talk) 23:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
---
I have done a quick google search, and founded some more references;
This we can use in the article with care as
WP:MREL, but it doesn't count for GNG, see
WP:NEWSWEEK.
This is a mixture of primary and secondary with some interview portions but I would say this will probably be accepted though some of the more strict types might not like it.
This is an interview and hence
WP:PRIMARY we can use it but it won't count for
WP:GNG.
Once incorporated into the article there should be a strong case for keeping, though AFD might still go either way, would be nice to have one more unambiguous GNG source to be on the safe side.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDD8:5E1C:3E77:A8E6 (
talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply