Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skepticwiki

Skepticwiki

Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. I don't see any reliable independent sources writing about this site in depth (as is required). A search for references to the site, yields mainly links from blogs and message boards, and nothing of value. Rob 16:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The source for the wiki is the wiki and the related blog. The article hasn't even been up for 24 hours. Arbusto 17:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines clearly require *independent* sources. Without them, this is just advertising, telling us what Skepticwiki wishes to say about itself. --Rob 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa rank about 800,000 and no significant attention from elsewhere. Fan1967 18:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This wiki now has 432 articles and gets roughly 28 google hits [1]. Hence, the article is far too premature and also reads like advertising. -- JJay 19:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia users should skeptics too, when it comes to claims of notability. ^BigE1977 22:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, doesn't meet WP:WEB, doesn't meet WP:V, etc. Darquis 22:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am going to go against the trend and argue for keeping this. It is relatively new and most mention is on blogs, but word about it has circulated among the membership of Skeptic Associations. I have put a couple of links on the talk page. The first is an influencial web site run by a member of the Australian Skeptics, but independent of them. The second gives a positive mention of this wiki in a PC Magazine that very sensibly and in a reasonably detailed way discusses medical advice online and its dangers. I think it is mentioned in the "Australian Skeptic" but I do not have the link to hand. I would be surprised indeed if it was not mentioned in the US Skeptics magazine. I think it should be left for a while and it will develop. Just leave warning tags on it about sources, etc. --Bduke 23:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link, which you said is "an influencial web site" and "independent", is merely a copy/paste from Skepticwiki's own About page. You can't say something is independent of Skepticwiki, if Skepticwiki wrote it. The other link you gave is better, but it's only one relevant sentence. --Rob 00:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, you are technically correct about the first point. Since I know the guy who writes that site, I was sure he agreed with what he wrote, but that is of course WP:OR. ratbags.com is a very well known skeptics site. --Bduke 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]