Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia is Evil

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Evil
Apart from the title being an oxymoron, I hardly think this is encyclopaedic. Deb 12:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete before people find out about our fiendish plot. Capitalistroadster 12:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for deletion.
 * Delete, POV title. Opinion masked as facts, not an article but an essay/rant/column. Any criticism can be put in existing articles on the issue. Mgm|(talk) 13:19, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Craigy [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] (talk) 13:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * No reason listed for deletion.
 * Delete for reasons already stated. What about the Wikipedia Sucks article that it is linked to? 23skidoo 14:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No specific reason listed for deletion.
 * Wikipedia Sucks seems to be redirected to "Why wikipedia isn't so great". Mgm|(talk) 14:41, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. heh. Are you sure this can't be speedied? hehe."A unique criticism, however, is that the system actually exhumes evil based on its design." -- Phroziac (talk) 14:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No reason listed for deletion.
 * Yo mama's listed for deletion, Nevre.
 * It's not verifiable -- Phroziac (talk) 13:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We need to keep this fact quiet... -- Joolz 14:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for deletion.
 * Please do not attempt to discredit my vote, the admin which counts the vote at the end of this proccess can determine if any invalid votes have been made. I never claimed that my comment was the reason I think this article should be deleted. It was merely a comment. I believe that this article should be deleted because I concur with the reasons given by the nominee. I think it would be quite unneccessary if everyone had to repeat the same reasons for every vote, or even if they had to put "I concur" after each vote because that's what voting delete without any further reasons generally means. -- Joolz 14:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur.
 * Transwiki to . Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 15:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to . --Ian Pitchford 16:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not funny. ConeyCyclone 17:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for deletion. It was not intended as a humor article, and the humor value of an article to any one party does not determine its informational value.
 * Delete and put on WP:BJAODN. King of &hearts;  &diams;  &clubs; &spades; 18:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No reason listed for deletion.
 * Redirect to Why Wikipedia is not so great, so that those who refuse to see why Wikipedia is so great will not go re-create this non-funny article. --Idont Havaname 19:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for deletion. It was not intended as a humor article, and the humor value of an article to any one party does not determine its informational value.
 * Keep Jinkleberries 19:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No reason listed for keeping.
 * Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, lest the Cabal make you dissappear Project2501a 20:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for deletion.
 * Delete. Utterly stupid. Now, lest that be labelled as "Not a valid reason for deletion", I'll add unencyclopedic as well. And give contributor the old bar of soap in the sock routine. -R. fiend 05:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "Unencyclopedic" is only a proposed guideline and it is not current Wikipedia policy.
 * Jesus H. Christ, I'm sick of hearing shit like this. Unencyclopedic material ipso facto does not belong in an encyclopedia. Someone get me my sock and soap. -R. fiend 15:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Then don't listen.
 * Comment: The "technically no valid votes" person has a section on his user page that makes light of vandalism. He is User:Nevreware, the creator of the Wikipedia is Evil article. --Idont Havaname 06:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Making light of vandalism was not my intent. Your interpretation of my user page is your personal view.
 * Delete. From Deletion policy, and by extension, WP:NOT: original research, propaganda or advocacy, critical reviews, and personal essays. And throw in a not encyclopedic in for good measure. And User:Nevreware, I don't believe there is any policy requiring reasons to be given with votes; if there is, I'd appreciate if you could point it out.&mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * From the WP:NOT page: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. That is, majority opinion does not necessarily rule in Wikipedia. Various votes are regularly conducted, but their numerical results are usually only one of several means of making a decision. The discussions that accompany the voting processes are crucial means of reaching consensus. For example, a very important Wikipedia process is reaching consensus on what articles are not encyclopedic and should be deleted from Wikipedia entirely. The discussion by which that consensus is reached occurs in the context of a "vote" on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page. That page is slightly misnamed since the discussion is more important than the actual voting."
 * Userfy to subpage of User:Nevreware. Not encyclopedic, POV title, original research etc.
 * "Unencyclopedic" is only a proposed guideline and it is not current Wikipedia policy. The title can be altered and more sources added.
 * Delete - advocacy - Skysmith 09:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Technically all entries on Wikipedia advocate one or more views of how something should be properly defined.
 * Delete From Wikipedia is not a soapbox: " Personal essays that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta."   Also, FYI, User:Nevreware, your wikilawyering replies to each and every vote on this page could be considered a breach of etiquette.  Soundguy99 12:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So could calling someone stupid and idiotic, their ideas shit, and threatening to assult them. ;-) But thank you for your vote, and your comments which add actual substance to this page.


 * Delete and move to meta: it's a piece of opinion, which includes a lot of original research. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 13:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Inherently POV; unencyclopedic; personal essay; duplicates Criticism of Wikipedia. Incidentally, being unencyclopedic is a perfectly valid criterion for deletion. The fact that Unencyclopedic redirects to Importance is not actually an issue. The proposed policy there is about notability. Obviously "this does not belong in an encyclopedia" is a valid criterion for removing the content from our encyclopedia. Have it on Meta or in a user sub-page if you must, but don't litter the article namespace with self-referential, unencyclopedic rubbish. smoddy 13:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Opinion piece. -- Preacher King of Mao 14:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone here seems to be labouring under the delusion that you have to have a valid reason for your vote. More to the point that he/she is the judge of what is a valid reason. In fact there is no need for anyone to provide a reason for their vote, any more than you have to have a 'valid' reason for how you vote in an election. If there was, democracy would be in a lot of trouble. (No vote by the way) DJ Clayworth 14:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If people voted for things arbitrarily, democracy would be in a lot of trouble. But considering we only get two choices, isn't it already? ;-)
 * Delete Unless the article is revised to explain instead of argue. If it were re-written to document the arguments against Wikipedia instead of actually making the arguments, it might be worth keeping. Of course, I'd also want to see what sources there are for these arguments (i.e. any magazine articles, webpages or books). I am guessing that it's not a wide-spread movement (perhaps only a movement of one person) and thus lacks significance.... --Habap 17:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for an article. Delete and beat up those responsible. &mdash; Phil Welch 17:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Is a recommendation of violence as bad as a threat of it? (chuckling) --Habap 17:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a litterbox, with a permanent deletion notice (just for show). It would be such a great place to edit when having hissy fits.   If it can't be a litterbox, rats.  The other thing, then.   --Mothperson 18:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per so-called "not valid" reasons as stated above. =D - Mailer Diablo 00:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- original research... no, wait, that doesn't seem quite right... BJAODN... no, it isn't particularly funny... Eh, screw it. Delete just because I think the author is stupid. Haikupoet 02:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not even funny. Rhobite 05:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete on grounds of being self-referential nonsense. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If anyone has a legitimate reason for deleting, keeping, or redirecting, I encourage you to list it here. However, simply stating "delete" is not a valid reason for deletion. If the veracity, format, or POV of the article is in question, it should be discussed in the Talk section. So far, few techincally valid votes have been posted as far as I can see, for reasons listed below. []
 * And you are...? Haikupoet 02:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's self-referential, it's original research, and it's mostly nonsense. How's that for a reason? Rhobite 16:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hard to critique an article that isn't up anymore.
 * I wasn't aware one needed a reason. Wikipedia is still a democracy, isn't it? Of course you'd need a good reason to vote Conservative nowadays, but this article is silly, full stop. Craigy [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] (talk) 16:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy, but you don't need to supply the reasoning behind your vote, especially if your reasons are already listed. --Habap 14:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: this is a personal essay/rant, not an encyclopedia article. -- The Anome 16:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Un focused 16:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV by definition. carmeld1 22:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV by defition, original research, unverifiable. Jayjg (talk)  15:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV/original research, however some of those criticisms are commonly made of the Wikipedia, so it may be worth digging up some sources and putting the more notable points in something like a Common criticisms page or something. I don't know what the hell the creator was thinking, he could've actually defended some of that if he hadn't gone overboard on calling the encyclopedia evil and putting those images on, but as it stands it's blatantly just a personal attack on the place. Sockatume 16:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not E2. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:12, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * Merge reasonable arguments into Why Wikipedia is not so great, jettison rest. &mdash;Ghakko 04:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nevreware (talk &bull; contribs) has been harassing voters, dismissing votes that do not provide reasons (see for evidence). Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 05:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A unique criticism, however, is that the system actually exhumes evil based on its design. This view is explored in depth in this article.
 * Delete, Its style exposes its lack of real potential. This article is typified by sentences like these:
 * The article establishes the parameter for the topic as, an in depth exploration of the unique criticism that, Wikipedia exhumes evil by design. It couldn't be made more clear to what pseudo-intellectual depths the article must go in order to investigate the issue under a pretense of neutrality.  The exploration of this view consists chiefly of a lazy wave of the hand in the general direction of a group of people, ominously called "internet fundamentalists " - well, let's just say it (and he does) - "Christians" - well, alright (which he doesn't say), "Me".  This is how far an in depth exploration of the topic will take us at first thrust.  I shudder to think how much farther in that direction things might go with a little more work.


 * This is followed by a section entitled Man-Based Thought in Information, the relevance of which is not obvious, unless the point is to grant access to someone's (presumably not the author's) struggles with epistemological issues in a world without God. Finally, we are treated to an arm-chair analysis of what we might have learned from reading all this.


 * My first inclination was to try to improve the essay - because I can sympathize with its theme. Any religious person who is never frustrated by the official and coercive agnosticism, enforced through Wikipedia's editing policies, is not religious in any sense that I can identify with.  But the only way to contribute to this topic would be to join with the author in carving out article space for a forum controversy, for the sake of further elucidating his point of view.  I recommend to the author that he should create a blog, link to it from userspace, and direct people to it who might be interested in his explanation of why Christians will find it difficult to participate in Wikipedia, and why he thinks this is not an accident.  This would free him from the pretense of agnosticism, and enable him to write much more credibly about the problem.  However, the best way to improve this article is to delete it from Wikipedia. Some mention of the problem alluded to might make a good addition to Why Wikipedia is not so great, but there are only themes, no actual content, here. Mkmcconn (Talk)  05:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research.


 * "If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."


 * "The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean that material is bad – Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia."


 * --Edcolins 10:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Or move to the "Wikipedia:" space if decided to keep. roozbeh 02:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Either transwiki to meta or move page to a user subpage of whoever started that article. Or move to BJAODN. - 68.23.97.244 23:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .