Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skepchick


 * 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   merge to Rebecca Watson. To Rebecca Watson - I just closed that as keep Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Skepchick

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism being pushed forward by a clique of bloggers. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting ideas. Damiens .rf 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the name of an organization. It should be re-written as an organization. Mindme (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, nor is it a dictionary of neologisms.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  18:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N—especially in regards to reliability of sources. Jeremiah (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Rebecca Watson as half the article is about the website she started and without some explanation the first line of her article will lack context.--Boffob (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebecca Watson is basically written by just one editor and most of it's 27 references are trivial self-published primary sources. Deleting both wouldn't be a great loss. --Damiens .rf 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the Rebecca Watson article relies almost entirely on sources from blogs, youtube, and other primary sources and should go as well.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  19:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost all of them, "almost" being the operative word. - Mgm|(talk) 20:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry I didn't check those sources properly. I figured with 27 non-bare cites it'd be legit. But I guess my vote stands until the Rebecca Watson article itself gets deleted.--Boffob (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Already nominated (thanks, User:Coccyx Bloccyx): Articles for deletion/Rebecca Watson --Damiens .rf 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That the Rebecca Watson article is written by mostly one person isn't surprising since it was created just a few days ago! Of course there aren't a lot of editors yet. Also it shouldn't matter, articles should be judged solely on their content. Whether the content is good/notable enough I've discussed on the relevant page. Ole Eivind (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This is clearly a neologism. - Mgm|(talk) 20:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete See WP:Neologism. David WS  (contribs)  20:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Rebecca Watson. Enough reliable third-party sources about her (such as articles in The Boston Globe), and she is pivotal to the term "Skepchick". Unless good sources are found on the word, I think it's best to merge the article into the Rebecca Watson article. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Minor update: found an article from Der Spiegel linking to the Skepchick.org site 1. The very last link in the story is to the Skepchick site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan Kruithof (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with Rebecca Watson. This article is extremely lacking, and everything worth saying is said in the article about Watson. I guess this in practice means Delete. Ole Eivind (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge And lets stop talking about the other article here, there is a page for it and that is where discussion of it should be --129.19.136.103 (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.   --  treelo  radda  00:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the Rebecca article. There is no source establishing notability on the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of reliable third party sources on the subject. Every last one of them fail WP:RS guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Rebecca Watson. While I don't read her site, I do read other skeptical sites, and Skepchick pretty much always refers to Rebecca. Any broader meaning can be covered in her article if it's kept.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  14:28, 5 November 2008 (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.