Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta provider: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:24, 18 May 2018

Beta provider

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

Article based on two sources; treats a fringe theory as fact. One source is an article on a pick-up artist website called "Girls Chase: Get Girls Chasing YOU". The other is a book titled This Black Hole: Anacostia Diaries Continued by Francwa Sims. It's published by a vanity press by quite the eccentric author (see the title page, which identifies the book as: "This Black Hole - The Anacostia Diaries Continues // A Continued Personal Chronicle of the Years Beyond 2000-Plus. Started in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Eight Under the Authority of His Excellency, King Barack I (President Barack H. Obama) // May God Save the United States of America and His Excellency, King Donald I (President Donald J. Trump)". The article itself includes such statements as "especially if the woman is under some duress such as being a single mom (perhaps from one night stands with various alphas)". GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how can anything that has 53,500 Ghits be "fringe theory" not worthy of inclusion? For comparison, "homoflexible" has 54,500 Ghits.Miacek (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was the one who linked you to WP:GHITS in this discussion, I know you know that's not a suitable argument for notability. Even if it were, that wouldn't allow editors to create articles based on unreliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the WP:GHITS guideline is much more nuanced than you claim it is; a very high number of Ghits clearly shows a term is widespread. Second, why did you ignore my point on "homoflexibility" and similar articles? The article Bi-curious has "wholly" 3 sources, the only one of which I could access - this [1] has no substance whatsoever as to the question at hand, just mentioning the word "bicurious" once, and the article reads like a dictionary definition, are we gonna delete this one, too? Wouldn't that be bigoted? What about a much wider phenomenon then? Miacek (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 *'''Keep''' how can anything that has [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&ei=t0T_WurSK4easAfPq67YBg&q=%22Beta+provider%22&oq=%22Beta+provider%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i7i30k1j0l3j0i8i7i30k1j0i30k1l5.2896.2896.0.3534.1.1.0.0.0.0.80.80.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.78....0.6O39msfc9rU 53,500] Ghits be "fringe theory" not worthy of inclusion? For comparison, "[[homoflexible]]" has [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&ei=40T_WsbYNMKvkwWs-Lwo&q=%22homoflexible%22&oq=%22homoflexible%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l6j0i30k1j0i203k1j0i30k1.42770.45728.0.46208.12.12.0.0.0.0.158.1064.10j2.12.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.12.1062...0i7i30k1j0i67k1j0i7i10i30k1j0i13k1.0.fjjaOK2UMU8 54,500] Ghits.[[User:Miacek|Miacek]]  [[User talk:Miacek|(talk)]] 21:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 *:Since I was the one who linked you to [[WP:GHITS]] in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Incel&oldid=841845474#%22Absolute_Beginners%22_and_%22Whatever%22 this discussion], I know you know that's not a suitable argument for notability. Even if it were, that wouldn't allow editors to create articles based on unreliable sources. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 22:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
+**First, the [[WP:GHITS]] guideline is much more nuanced than you claim it is; a very high number of Ghits clearly shows a term is widespread. Second, why did you ignore my point on "homoflexibility" and similar articles? The article [[Bi-curious]] has "wholly" 3 sources, the only one of which I could access - this [https://journals.openedition.org/transatlantica/3503] has no substance whatsoever as to the question at hand, just mentioning the word "bicurious" once, and the article reads like a dictionary definition, are we gonna delete this one, too? Wouldn't that be bigoted? What about a much wider phenomenon then? [[User:Miacek|Miacek]]  [[User talk:Miacek|(talk)]] 22:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)