Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PESWiki


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. 1ne 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

PESWiki


It is a vanity page, quite possibly unverifiable, and an advertisement (since it prominently links to sites that earn money from ads and from the sale of the "energy-related" articles they promote). Looks like a non-notable forum for fringe technologies, and also like someone's trying to make a point. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Response from PESWiki Founder The page was posted by the suggestion of User:Meco who posted the invitation to create such a page on User_talk:sterlingda's talk page on 25 May 2006.

The argument that the site earns money from ads and therefore is unworthy of a link is not balanced inasmuch as most sites on the internet (and which are linked from Wikipedia) are supported at least in part by ads.

The argument of "unverifiable" is also irrelevant inasmuch as many of the technology feature pages most often include documentation of just what is or is not validated on a given technology. Indeed, the New Energy Congress, which is hosted at PESWiki.com was founded with the purpose of documenting technologies and rating them based on a set of criteria, one of the ten criteria being "credibility of evidence."

The site has been built over two years, through the collaborative effort of many people, and contains many well-developed articles akin to Wikipedia.

The argument that the site is merely a "non-notable forum", that is likewise groundless, inasmuch as the ratio of viewers to posters is highly disproportionate. Most of the traffic comes from viewers, and most of the changes are made by a few individuals who are careful about accuracy and credibility. Very little dialogue, or "forum" activity takes place on the site.

As for "fringe technologies," we prefer to use the terminology of "cutting-edge," and yes, that is our specialty -- to push the envelope. We spend most of our effort outside of the mainstream box. That is why the site was created, rather than just populating energy-related content at WikiPedia. Such content was not welcome here, so we created that site, and it has been a tremendous success. Many professionals from a wide berth of disciplines visit the site and refer to it often.

Of course we're trying to make a point. Isn't that the point of any written document? Maybe I'm missing some nuance of some Wikipedia jargon. Whatever.

Finally, let me say that one thing I do not miss at all about Wikipedia (rarely visiting here for the purpose of posting), which is nearly completely absent at PESWiki, is this sort of mindless quibbling about content that is obviously meritorious to most observers -- especially those who know what they are talking about on the subject. Mr. Pablo-flores is able to post a notice of putting the page up for deletion, and he has obviously spent just a minute or two looking at the site, while there are several individuals contributing to PESWiki many hours a day, day after day, week after week, and now two years total, making it a very significant work -- a point completely lost on Mr. Pablo-flores. I don't mean disrespect to him in staying that, I'm just criticizing the culture here at Wikipedia which is so knee-jerk busy-bodyish, that productivity of serious contributors is wasted on responding to such silly nonsense.

I'm so glad I have a place mostly absent of such mindlessness over at PESWiki, where we can post unfettered, for the most part, limited only by a quest for truth, and hardly ever having to be bogged down by politics of groundless and unnecessary interactions such as this.

I'm the "Jimbo Wales" of PESWiki, and am treated with respect there, and I try to treat others who contribute with the same respect. Yet here at Wikipedia, I'm treated like an imbecile. Do you think that that is inviting to good content contributions? Hardly. I spend every waking hour, nearly, focused on cutting-edge energy technology, surveying the field, reporting, writing, compiling, etc. Yet Mr. Pablo-flores treats my posting with about as much respect as if it had come from some punk just flinging some information on the site for a kick. Man I don't miss Wikipedia!

If the inventor of a technology comes to PESWiki and posts content, we rejoice. We don't call it "self-promotion." Sheesh, if Tesla were alive, and dared post something about himself at Wikipedia, you would ban the page because of "self-promotion." Who better to compose an article than the subject of the article? Come on folks. When are you going to get a clue? Sterlingda 06:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Different Wikis have different purposes. The purpose of this Wiki is to be an Encyclopaedia - so non-encyclopaedic content is excluded, just as words you personally made up at excluded at the Wikitionary.  Perhaps you're looking for Wiki - uh - what does Wikisource do?  WilyD 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:WEB. Sorry. The most significant inboudn link seems to be a Digg ... and a Wikipedia article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete cutting edge and painful to read. --Musaabdulrashid 08:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, no references, no sources for claims like "an authoritative source" and the promotion of corporate sites. feydey 08:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - fails WP:WEB, not notable enough, not enough links in, article reads like an ad and needs serious wikification. --Draicone (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong KEEP!!! - SUCCEEDS WP:WEB, notable enough, enough links to validate technologies outlined, article reads like normal news ezines and needs to be maintained. IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT A LOT OF THE POSTS REQUESTING DELETION ARE FROM THE SAME OR SIMILAR IP ADDRESSES...NICE TRY. --altenergy (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is what I meant by making a point:
 * Many of the topics are on subjects that Allan was not able to post at Wikipedia when he attempted to do so back in 2003. At the time, such content was considered too controversial, or not sufficiently established scientifically. Several of these topics now have significant Wikipedia entries as well.  (emphasis mine)
 * The article has other problems, already outlined above, which cannot be solved by removing those sentences.
 * Yes, Mr. Allan, Wikipedia is picky and yes, some of us do quibble about content. Our content (I speak of us as part of the community, which you aren't and don't want to be, as per your own admission) is subject to policies. You're free to have other policies in your site.
 * I won't discuss the quality or scientific validation of the content, or the work put into it by its contributors. That's not the point of this AfD. The point is that the website is not notable (see above), and the article makes claims that are not verified outside of it. Wikipedia is not a source of information; ideally, it's a repository of already reviewed, verified information.
 * Of course many sites employ advertising. But your site has a "Top 10", for example, that is a directory of commercial websites selling controversial technologies (cold fusion for home theaters, energy extraction from the vacuum, etc.). The Wikipedia article doesn't add to our knowledge of these, it merely increases your visibility. You have to be visible (notable) before you have an article in Wikipedia.
 * Your response only reinforces the idea that you're trying to make a point. Wikipedia is not "on the quest for truth". There are other places for that. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per nom. Non-notatable. Jefffire 12:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as it references no reliable sources. WilyD 12:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep digg is a far more reliable measure of notability than Alexa. Cynical 14:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, site does not meet WP:WEB criteria.--Isotope23 15:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable?

In Response to those who say the article should be deleted because PESWiki is non-notable. ..

According to Google, which has a very strong algorithm for page ranking, PESWiki consistently pull up high, often coming in the top three for specific companies, inventors, and technologies for which PESWiki has a feature page; often coming up even higher than Wikipedia for certain topics. This indicates that according to Google, which bases its algorithm largely on incoming links and traffic, PESWiki is a highly significant site, on a par with or even surpassing Wikipedia when it comes to PESWiki's coverage of cutting-edge energy technologies. If that is not significant, then neither is Wikipedia significant.

Sample topics that come up higher in Google for PESWiki than for Wikipedia:


 * (Commented out, irrelevant to discussion)

References: Sterlingda 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * http://Google.com
 * http://googlehigh.com - by PES Network, gives reason for its high returns at Google; no gimmick, just consistently good page layout that is rewarded by Google for reasons of honesty.
 * Google is not helpful in establishing notability of a website. People here are sometimes impressed by high Alexa Rankings, which Peswiki is rated at 59,969 - because that measures the traffic - i.e. how much the website is used, not just how good it is at scamming google. Mayhaps you should take a gander at WP:WEB to see what Wikipedia is really looking for.  WilyD 13:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As documented at http://googlehigh.com, PESWiki's page rankings are not due to short-term tricks or gimmicks, but are due to quality and presentation of content. These high ratings are a consistent feature of PES Network sites, and do not come and go with the latest trick. An Alexa rating in the region of 59,000 is quite respectable for a niche-topic site as PESWiki is. Sterlingda 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * An Alexa ranking of 60 000 is not atrocious, but it's hardly a criterion for inclusion - it just means a site may be able to establish itself as encyclopaedic (which this has not). WilyD 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wookieepedia can have an entry and not PESWiki? WTF?!?! 134.193.168.251 14:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wookieepedia does have a reference with the Scifi article - that's not to say it'd pass AfD is nom'd. WilyD 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PESWiki Has a few references also (in a few articles). And there has been a systematic push to keep the site out (defenders of "truth" not fact). Sad to see the Wikipediblog do this. AfD use to be alot better a few years ago (when it was VfD), but the bias is rampant now in Wikpediblog ... 134.193.168.251 14:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On this point you would be mistaken - the article does not cite any reliable sources. WilyD 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD is not a competition to see if PESWiki is better than Wikipedia or any other site. Please read the policies that have been pointed out to you and try to understand what this is about. And please move long replies to the talk page (AfD main pages are for votes and short comments only). You might like to read up on Google bombing to understand what's happening with your Google ratings. I've removed your comments about the list of wikis, not pertaining to this process. Tu quoque? BTW, you can nominate the Wookieepedia article for deletion if you feel it doesn't deserve a place in Wikipedia. If you simply dislike Wikipedia, either challenge its policies in the proper places or leave. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Google bombing is what wikipedia does. That is why in the Manual of style that Wikipedia recommends that 'all links in an article are internal wikilinks. Inaddition Many Wikipedian don't follow the WP policies or twist them to support thier point. BTW, Wookieepedia meets these condition that this article is criticized for ... but thye voters here twist the rules how they like .... 134.193.168.251 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wookieepedia does have a single reliable-ish source in it - however, articles that haven't been considered for deletion really offer no precendence at all - there's no real reason to believe Wookieepedia would survive AfD - things do get through the cracks. WilyD 17:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PD - Sorry, I didn't pay attention and skipped over the link to googlehigh. You actually wrote a book on how to trick Google to get high ranks, and you're advertising it here! —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not "advertising" it, I'm referencing it as a documentation of the fact that honesty is the best policy when it comes to ranking well in Google. You have missed the point of the "book".  There are no "tricks" it has completely to do with good content and placement that makes sense and flows well for readers. Sterlingda 16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also note a similar debacle going on at List of energy topics. wikipediatrix 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - as spam and not meeting WP:WEB. Wickethewok 15:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete? No, Nuke it. It fails WP:WEB, WP:RS (were are the independent third party sources?), WP:SPAM (reads like an advert), WP:NOT(take your pick of violations there...soapbox, hosting, etc), WP:POINT (Per the rant above), WP:AUTO/WP:VANITY(Per the rant above) ...and the holy trinity: WP:NPOV (article is far from a neutral pov), WP:OR (No independent sources?), and WP:V (Can't verify any of this information). I haven't seen this many violations on just one article in a long time. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 16:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, violations of WP:NPOV aren't grounds for deletion of articles - but your other criteria are likely enough to support a deletion action anyhow. WilyD 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, you are correct. I was just using it because I used the other two and there is that statement that the three rules should not be applied seperately, or it could be that I only am running on two hours of unrestful sleep. Forgive my ramblings -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to step on your toes just for going a little overboard with good pedagogical intent. WilyD 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries WilyD. You are one user that I actually concider a friendly face...typeset...whatever :P -- Brian  ( How am I doing? )
 * Delete —  Fails WP:WEB M  a  rtinp23  17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:WEB and others. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete'? abassign (ITALY) ,No! It goes maintained link, is a much optimal reference for the study of energies alternatives. Is thery userful. It is much profit for the job of scouting on energetic technologies alternatives.
 * I find PESWiki quite useful. I go to it almost every day.  There is much useful information here. Hoss —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.184.45 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 August 2006.
 * The front door of my house is very useful. I use it several times per day.  It does not warrant an encyclopaedia article.  The criteria for inclusion here are not whether individual editors find the subjects of articles useful.  The various Policies and guidelines have been linked to above.  Please provide an argument that is based upon them. Uncle G 01:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:WEB, WP:OR, WP:Verfiability. Even this AfD discussion has been rendered into Spam. Rohirok 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Or purge links to it from Wikipedia articles A third option is to combine it with an article covering it, Sterling Allen's other site http://freeenergynews.com, http://zpenergy.com and http://www.keelynet.com/ Hackwrench 06:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * External links are a different matter. I wouldn't link to PESWiki.com from each and every article, but the site certainly is useful as an annotated directory of fringe cutting-edge technology, for those who want to get at that. External websites linked from Wikipedia need not be notable, verifiable or POV-neutral. I'd reserve it for certain specific articles, though, not for every energy tech article in WP. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep PESWiki Founder makes some very valid points, which don't appear to have been taken into consideration--Tess Tickle 13:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Such as? —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, you didn't have to repeat the whole rant. We must assume that everybody who participates in this discussion is paying attention to what has been said. If you have reasons to want the article kept, state them. You'll need to address the reasons of those who want the article deleted, which are based on a wide range of policies. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can someone tell me the better, more authoritative, less commercial website source for information on research into cutting edge energy technology? If we are to assume that PESWiki is some form of self promoting self referential site, then there must be another that meets Wikipedia's criterion?  I find PESWiki to be the definitive, balanced, authoritative wiki on this subject.  Shame if Wikipedia deletes it, and this will cast serious doubts upon the vaunted Wikipedian policies! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnww2 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 18 August 2006.  — Possible single purpose account: Johnww2 (talk • contribs)  has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Please read my User:johnww2 page before discounting my contribution to the discussion.  Thanks.


 * Delete per above will381796 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. As Sterlingda has informed I urged him back in May to create a page about his wiki site, and I'm pleased to see he has followed up on my encouragement. As for the issue of whether or not the article meets WP:WEB I find this particular Wikipedia guideline very oblique and prone to POV interpretations. In my view the subject of this article, the PESWiki, is notable enough. __meco 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Point-for-Point Rebuttal to Pablo's call for deletion
Pablo asks in what way I have responded to his contentions.

Let me be specific, point for point:


 * Pablo says : "It is a vanity page"


 * Sterling replies : It is a review of PESWiki.com, which is a news, directory, and open source project service for cutting-edge energy technologies, unparalleled anywhere on the internet, said to be the best by many leaders in the field.


 * Pablo says : "quite possibly unverifiable"


 * Sterling replies : Note the number of references to the site in a Google search for peswiki, some of which references have been appended to the article. Google tallies 48,900 references.


 * Pablo says : "an advertisement (since it prominently links to sites that earn money from ads and from the sale of the "energy-related" articles they promote)."


 * Sterling replies : A site having revenue income outside of just donations does not constitute grounds for it not being addressed or linked from Wikipedia. Not everyone has to beg, though PES Network would not have survived without generous contributions in the beginning.  It is now self-funded.  That should be an argument for vitality, not the other way around.


 * Pablo said : "non-notable"


 * Sterling replies : I have documented here (which someone removed) that many of PESWiki's energy listings come up higher in Google searches for key terms than Wikipedia for those same terms, often coming within the top five, and even in the first position in some cases, such as "Open Source Energy". We are ahead of CNN, CNET, and even the U.S. Government and all other institutions on the planet for many search terms. If that is not notable, I don't know what is.  And it isn't because we trick the search engines.  The http://googlehigh.com site I posted documents the opposite -- our high ranking comes from a principle of "honesty really is the best policy.


 * Pablo says : "forum"


 * Sterling replies : The volume of back-and-forth commentary taking place on the site is maybe around 2 - 5% (a guess). It is very low.  Most pages are objective presentations of their subject matter, and include links to skeptical input.  That is as it should be.


 * Pablo says : "fringe technologies"


 * Sterling says : Today's truth was yesterday's blasphemy. Indeed, we push the envelope.  That is our mission -- something Wikipedia is unwilling to do, hence the void that needed to be filled.  Someone needs to be willing to think outside the box and explore new possibilities, or no advancement will be made.  Wikipedia specializes in well-established science.  PESWiki specializes in cutting-edge science, often bleeding-edge.  Few are courageous enough to risk their reputations in such uncharted territory, but for those who are, we provide a venue for their exploration.


 * Pablo said : "trying to make a point"


 * Sterling replies : According to WP:POINT, this apparently has to do with a Wikipedia user posting something not for its merits, but to create controversy in order to illustrate an argument through an extreme example. I assure you that I had no such agenda in posting the page.  As stated in the memo at the time I posted the page, I was posting the page based on another user suggesting a couple of months earlier that I do so.  The page was posted with all sincerity, and is an accurate, if not inadequate synopsis of a very in-depth and substantial site, whose contents has been created through the collaborative efforts of many.

In summary, I have replied to each of Pablo's criticism, showing them to be overwhelmingly groundless. I must say that when he first posted the "delete" suggestion on the page, I was tempted to post a "delete" suggestion on his user page. I didn't know how to do so, or I would have. Perhaps someone else, who is more Wikipedia conversant can do so. Let the Wikipedia community decide if Pablo should continue as a contributor in good standing. I would certainly vote "delete." With people like him making such ridiculous suggestions with absolutely no substantial merit, only personal bias and knee-jerk observations, the caliber and meaningful future of Wikipedia is jeopardized.

As a sampling of PESWiki merit, please review our most recent page: Review:The Corporation. See also the listing of the most recent major page postings at PESWiki to get a feel for the frequency and caliber of new PESWiki content, which has been mostly consistent from the beginning, two years ago, when the site commenced.

Sterlingda 18:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Where PESWiki.com Surpasses Wikipedia in Google Searches
This was posted above with an earlier comment I made, but someone deleted it as irrelevant. I deem it highly relevant for documenting how significant a site PESWiki is. I spent a morning preparing this information for this defense. I don't appreciate other users removing it.

Sample topics that come up higher in Google for PESWiki than for Wikipedia: (as of Aug. 15, 2006) (search terms are not in quotations to limit them to that word sequence or juxtaposition)


 * open source energy (137,000,000 entries at Google)
 * http://peswiki.com/energy/OS is #7
 * other PES Network sites rank #1, 2, 5, 6
 * site ranking #3,4 is a former PES Network associate
 * cnn is #10
 * cnet is #11
 * Wikipedia #23


 * new energy congress (112,000,000 entries at Google)
 * http://peswiki.com/energy/Free_Energy_Congress is #1,2
 * other PES Network sites rank #3 and #10
 * http://energy.senate.gov is #4
 * businessweek is #5
 * www.house.gov is #8
 * cnn.com is #27
 * cnet is #30
 * whitehouse.gov is #38
 * wikipedia is #52


 * Tesla Motors (2,300,000 entries at Google)
 * http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Tesla_Motors,_Inc. comes up #10
 * motortrend.com is #4
 * wired.com is #6
 * CNET is #21
 * Wikipedia is #28


 * Tesla Motors Inc (399,000 entries at Google)
 * http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Tesla_Motors,_Inc. comes up #3, immediately after corporate site
 * Wikipedia entry is #8.


 * home generation (668,000,000 entries at Google)
 * http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Home_Generation is #1
 * cnn.com is #10
 * Wikipedia does not rank in top 10


 * hydrogen from water (44,100,000 entries at Google)
 * http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Hydrogen_from_Water is #3
 * purdue.edu is #8
 * physchem.co.za is #9
 * sciam.com is #10
 * sciencedaily.com is #12
 * physorg.com is #14
 * nature.com is #16
 * bbc.co.uk is #23
 * nrel.gov is #31
 * CNET is #34
 * greencarcongress.com is #49
 * wired.com is #51
 * doe.gov is #54
 * wikipedia is not in top 100


 * stirling energy systems (2,260,000 entries at Google)
 * http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Stirling_Energy_Systems is #4 after three corporate links
 * sandia.gov is #5 (where the company has been hosted, and where President Bush announced his energy policy)
 * wired.com is #7
 * answers.com #9
 * Wikipedia is #18


 * hydrogen technology applications (23,700,000 entries at Google) and hydrogen technology applications inc (6,030,000 entries at Google)
 * http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hydrogen_Technology_Applications_Inc comes up #3, immediately after corporate site
 * wikipedia comes up #10 and #8, respectively
 * eere.energy.gov is #9 for Hydrogen Technology Applications


 * bioperformance (101,000 entries at Google)
 * http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:BioPerformance_Fuel is #1, before corporate site (had 40,000+ MLM dealers)
 * oag.state.tx.us is #6 (Attorney General's office that temporarily shut down Bioperformance)
 * Wikipedia is #22

References:
 * http://Google.com
 * http://googlehigh.com - by PES Network, gives reason for its high returns at Google; no gimmick, just consistently good page layout that is rewarded by Google for reasons of honesty.

Sterlingda 18:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Pablo spent 12 mins max before posting AfD
I gave the following response to Pablo who posted a message to my talk page requesting that I remove my comments about him, as well as the Where PESWiki.com Surpasses Wikipedia in Google Searches section.

Hi Pablo. Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say "PESWiki is better than Wikipedia". I pointed out that PESWiki excels for some search terms. I didn't say so explicitly, but those search terms are not inconsequential. The point was to document that your assertion that PESWiki is "not notable" is not true.

Your arguments for deletion were shown by me to be groundless in each particular. Why don't you acknowledge as much? Likewise, I could show that each of the other arguments are without merit. I honed in on you because you were the one who commenced to AfD, and you had the gall to respond to one of the supporters for non-deletion by asking how I had rebuffed your arguments, so I elaborated, point by point. I wouldn't repeat myself if you would make such ridiculous statements as "Such as?" in response to the user comment "PESWiki Founder makes some very valid points, which don't appear to have been taken into consideration".

I stand by my assertion that Wikipedia would be better served without knee-jerk reactionaries such as yourself who make accusations that are groundless. Let me ask you. How much time did you take looking at PESWiki.com before posting the AfD? The answer to that question is found in the history of the page. Twelve minutes max. That is absolutely asinine that you would be able to render any kind good judgment in such a short period of time. Yet you carry yourself in your wording as if you are some big hot shot at Wikipedia. You should lose your privileges at Wikipedia, which is not well-served by the likes of you being free to throw your weight around.

Meets WP:WEB
Several critics above said that the PESWiki article fails for reasons of WP:WEB. The updated External articles and references section documents some relevant mainstream press citations, satisfying the first condition: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

'Ramifications for Wikipidia

Should laziness on the part of those voting for deletion -- because they do not roll up their sleeves to see if significant citations exist -- constitute grounds for deletion of a page? Except for one reference, I populated this list of links by doing a simple Google search on PESWiki and "New Energy Congress". The list is not comprehensive.

I thought one of the functioning principles of Wikipedia was that one person doesn't have to do all the work, but posts what he/she can, and others clean it up, expand it, post documentation, etc. That was not the case here. Rather, a few users responded in a knee-jerk manner, without doing any research, and assumed a certain thing (the article topic, PESWiki.com, is "not notable" based on WP:WEB), and rendered a decision based on that assumption. That assumption was wrong, they were wrong to vote for deletion. Their conclusion was groundless.

Do they continue in good standing at Wikipedia, and continue propagating such sloppy work? The first response to a new page should not be skepticism and persecution, but should be honest inquiry into the possibilities of legitimacy. I received no such queries in my talk page. Twelve minutes after PESWiki was posted, it was labeled AfD.

Sterlingda 18:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

p.s.

When User:Pablo-flores first came to the PESWiki page, and wondered about notability, rather than assume that non existed, without doing a check (which we can safely assume is what he did given the mere 12 minutes that transpired from the time the page was posted to the time he posted AfD), he should have either 1) done nothing; or 2) he should have done a web search to discover some significant links, and add them to the page for the benefit of subsequent users. Only after doing such a search, and coming up empty-handed, would he then be justified in posting a AfD based in part on the "non-notable" criteria. In this case, he would have found significant references.

Speaking of making a point, it seems that he was trying to be a hero for Wikipedia, keeping unworthy content out, at the expense of actually determining whether or not the content had merit. Again, I say an AfD should be posted on his user page, and he, and others like him, should not be allowed to continue in good standing at Wikipedia.

Sterlingda 19:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Any Other Objections?
I think I have addressed all of the major concerns mentioned above. If there is still a concern that is not addressed, which constitutes grounds for page deletion, please bring it to my attention so I can either address it, or agree that the page does not belong at Wikipedia per that reason. Sterlingda 18:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.