Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia

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

The result of the discussion was:  keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia

 * – (View MfD)

support deletion - The page violates Wikipedia policy of hosting material completely unrelated to the Encyclopedia. It is not an essay in any way concerned with how Wikipedia should be run. In addition, the article is dishonest. It points to mistakes in Britannica, when almost all of the mistakes were made in other sources (e.g Stalin's Birthday was officially listed as 1879 in the Soviet Union, Clinton's name ended with IV in the official whitehouse webpage etc). Almost every single instance of the mistake was corrected by Britannica in the online version (the current edition, so to say), it encourages people to keep finding mistakes and reporting it here, and this is contradictory to Wikipedia's nature. What if someone wanted to start an article about mistakes in CNN? Or NY Times? Or Fox News? Or Worldbook? Or conservapedia? In short, it is dishonest, is contradictory to Wikipedia's nature, and to add to it, is completely outdated. The page hails from times when Wikipedia was competing with Britannica. Those times are long gone. So I think, the time has more than come to delete it. --GorgeousJ (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken


 * support - I have been watching this page from 2007, and my opinion has not changed. This page absolutely does not belong here. Delete --2001:4930:48:55:B98E:F96C:3403:6162 (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — 2001:4930:48:55:B98E:F96C:3403:6162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment., you have not listed this discussion properly at Miscellany for deletion, therefore people may not see this, please list the discussion properly. Also the fact an IP with 0 edits and the same exact vote style as your own has found this MfD is very suspicious, please don't log out to double vote. Dylsss(talk contribs) 02:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * support - delete. --2603:6010:E202:CF27:2882:828:2008:EF09 (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — 2603:6010:E202:CF27:2882:828:2008:EF09 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Was not me. Also, how do I add the proper discussion thing? --GorgeousJ (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * Done it for you. Dylsss(talk contribs) 02:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 'Delete'- Valid criticisms, plus pretty anti-intellectual. --173.63.176.7 (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — 173.63.176.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 'Delete'- Wikipedia is not a place to host blog posts. Absolutely pro deletion --2603:6010:7620:7C00:3CAD:7005:FF73:31D9 (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — 2603:6010:7620:7C00:3CAD:7005:FF73:31D9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep This page is quite useful, and serves the purpose of showing that no encyclopedia is perfect, and shows that quite well. Also, I am still convinced that some of the IPs that voted here are owned by the nominator. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 14:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a project page, not part of the public-facing Wikipedia. It is useful to the editors. Just recently I used this page to point out to another editor that Britannica was not infallible and that in the case in question we needed to investigate other sources as Britannica was incorrect. Teishin (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep. WP:DUCK.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not disputing that the page might be useful. I am arguing that it violates the rules of Wikipedia. The other problem of course is that it is dishonest. The mistakes have been corrected by Britannica, and some of them were purely mechanical mistakes that have been corrected already. Also, the "mistakes" of Britannica are not really Britannica mistakes, as most of them come from several different sources. Additionally, Britannica itself does NOT dispute the fact that it can be prone to error, they have a full disclaimer. There is also the slippery slope argument. What if someone wants to start a blog about mistakes in the Americana? or CNN? or Fox News? This is essentially a blog post at this point maintained by a bunch of people, that has absolutely no relevance to Wikipedia.GorgeousJ (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * Calling the product of the editors who contributed to this project page "of course" "dishonest" seems to me to violate WP:CIVIL.Teishin (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Outside of Wiki scope. --2604:2000:1240:4001:A129:15E7:9A57:4CAD (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — 2604:2000:1240:4001:A129:15E7:9A57:4CAD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete I agree with the idea that this page is basically a relic of the past. Let's move on. Delete. --2600:1700:F9F0:33C0:2173:7E63:5E54:ADB8 (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — 2600:1700:F9F0:33C0:2173:7E63:5E54:ADB8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep as - in my view at least - the interaction between Wikipedia and things like EB, especially in Wikipedia's early years, is a valuable part of Wikipedia history. I am open to marking this as "historical" but that's a discussion for another venue, probably page's talk page.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  17:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete For delete. --200.75.227.122 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — 200.75.227.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Aside from the fact that this page is not relevant to Wikipedia, it is also extremely dishonest. Almost all of the "mistakes" are no longer present in current versions of the Britannica, and more importantly, they were NOT Britannica mistakes. They were common mistakes in existing sources. We are basically defaming a world renowned encyclopedia unfairly, and it is unrelated to Wikipedia. GorgeousJ (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)  &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * Comment As it stands at 18:06 PM, 21 December... The voting tally is as follows.... 8 for delete, 4 for keep. GorgeousJ (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * Deletion discussions are not a vote. It depends which side has the better arguments to keep or delete. SK2242 (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Delete. --99.65.234.104 (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — 99.65.234.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Since I see that this page is becoming controversial, I think now is a good time to give most comprehensive arguments as to why this page needs to be deleted. Let us start with the easiest ones. First, the slippery slope argument. Suppose someone wants to start a game on Wikipedia, let's call it "Spot the Mistakes in Worldbook encyclopedia over the years", what argument could we give for removing that page that we can't give here? Now, granted, this is a simple argument, but let's think about that. Now, more important arguments. This page contains fraudulent information, defamation and dishonesty. First, almost all of the "mistakes" have been corrected in the recent revisions of Britannica. Britannica accepts that revision is necessary, so obviously they accept that their past editions could contain inaccuracies. Second, the page is dishonest. Almost not a single "mistake" in Britannica is an actual mistake by Britannica. They are mistakes that were present in many sources. For example, Stalin's Birthday was listed as 1879 by Soviet sources. Clinton's name was listed as IV by official white house page. And, Britannica has updated its revisions do correct it once Clinton's library corrected the issue. And, almost NONE of the mistakes were corrected by Wikipedia. It is just dishonest to claim so. Stalin's birthdate was disputed before many Wikipedian's were even born, DesPrez's birthdate was disputed in scholarship way before Wikipedia. It is a case of extreme dishonesty. Third, many of the "mistakes" are not actually mistakes. For example, one user was confused about the difference between the Old Style dates and New Style dates. Why are we allowing this defamation to be entertained here? Fourth, there is absolutely and conclusively not a SINGLE reason for retaining this article, and every reason for getting rid of it. I am willing to answer any and all questions. Thanks GorgeousJ (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * Comment Please, read my arguments above. I conclusively show that the page is defamatory, dishonest and needs to be removed. Thanks GorgeousJ (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)  &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * And refer to the note an editor placed at the top of the page where it clearly says deletion discussions are not votes. Using phrases like "defamatory", "dishonest" leads me to believe you may be connected to/paid by the Encyclopedia Britannica. It would also explain all these IPs who turned up with baseless arguments to delete. SK2242 (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF GorgeousJ (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * I want to assume good faith, but first I want to know where these IPs came from. SK2242 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I am more than happy to have a checkuser conducted. I have given my arguments above. GorgeousJ (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken


 * Keep due to the obvious sock and/or meatpuppetry going on here. SK2242 (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've opened a SPI here (or it might have been moved to here if the edit request has been answered) since these IP addresses are very obviously all the same person trying to disrupt this discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I am more than happy to have an SPI conducted, however, I hope that it does not in any way affect this conversation. Assume Good Faith y'all. GorgeousJ (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * Calling the product of the editors of this project page "of course" "dishonest" would not appear to reflect an assumption of good faith. Teishin (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Jace (talk • contribs) 19:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a separate sockpuppet thing on my talk page. Please, go there if you are interested. This page is not for sockpuppet discussions. Thanks GorgeousJ (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * Keep - Briefly: If any of the arguments put forward above were found to be valid, the situation could be rightly remedied with a historical tag. However, given the circumstances, a pure rejection of the deletion nomination seems due without prejudice to anyone legitimately raising the matter in the future. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the vote is irresponsible. The sockpuppet discussion is still ongoing, and you presuming that it has ended is violating WP:AGF GorgeousJ (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)  &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * Delete Purely written, contains errors, and basically a blog post at this point. Just delete. 148.75.177.6 (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — 148.75.177.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Current voting tally: 10 in favor of deleting, 6 in favor of keeping. GorgeousJ (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * , consensus building is not tallying, the closer is not going to give weight to all these IPs, please don't make tally comments like these. Dylsss(talk contribs) 21:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. Did not know GorgeousJ (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken


 * Delete In addition to comments above,this is too hard to monitor for sourcing. Should not let simple assertions go unchallenged.ch (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Exactly. There are several ones that are mistaken, and very poorly sourced. GorgeousJ (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * Note I would also like to note, how so far we have not gotten a single response or a rebuttal to our objections. Here are the objections in a nutshell against keeping the page: 1)The page is not in any way related to Wikipedia or how it should be operated. 2)The page contains dishonest, fraudulent and misleading information. 3) The page encourages other such projects which are operated more as a blog than anything pertaining to how Wikipedia should function. 4)Wikipedia already has an article showing that other sources do not even claim infallibility, 5) The page is written in an extremely anti-intellectual manner, with multiple users speculating whether something is a mistake, and another user literally educating another user about the differences between the Julian and Gregorian calendar, while the user thought they found an error.   So far, there has been absolutely no response to any of these very serious objections.  GorgeousJ (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)  &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * Y'all are not counting or responding to my responses.Teishin (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Teishin. We do not dispute that things that are problematic can be useful. Conservapedia can be useful from time to time. If you want to point out the fact that Britannica is not infallible (or other sources for that matter), we already have a page devoted to that on Wikipedia See here The problem is that the page contains fraudulent and misleading information. It demonstrably contains falsehoods, unsourced material, and anti-intellectual stuff (in one semi hilarious incident, one of the users actually thinks they have found a mistake on Britannica only to be educated about the differences between the Julian and Gregorian calendar)... It is also outside of the scope of Wikipedia. I am sure that a page documenting falsehoods of Fox News or CNN can come in handy, but does it belong, that's the question. I hope I have addressed your concerns. Let me know if I can be of further help. Love and peace GorgeousJ (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)  &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * 1. The relationship is expressed in the title. 2. As I have pointed out to you previously, this is a violation of WP:CIVIL AND WP:AGF. If you find errors, work to correct them, not to vilify other editors for having made them. 3. That's Whataboutism. 4. Does not appear to be relevant to the issue. 5. Again, a violation of WP:CIVIL AND WP:AGF. If you find errors, work to correct them, not to vilify other editors for having made them. Teishin (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole page is a mistake. The only way to correct it is by deleting. --GorgeousJ (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * The whole page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia is a mistake, but that doesn't mean we should delete it. Teishin (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with you on points 3 and 4 and choose not to fight over point 2. However, I think it IS an important part of the early history of Wikipedia, and the more true point 2 is, the stronger the "keep the history intact" argument becomes.  If point 2 is false, then my argument boils down to "it was important at one time, it's an interesting part of the past, it should be kept on that basis."  If point 2 is true, then it's all of that PLUS "it's a part of our past that is not pretty and, because it is not pretty, it should not be forgotten."  The difference is one of "celebrating our past" and "preserving it as an educational lesson of what not to do again," not one of "keep it or dump it."  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  00:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with you, but do you believe that pages that are demonstrably false, misleading, contradictory to Wikipedia's nature, and outright defamatory of other well-respected projects should stay up? I respect the fact that you cherish the history of Wikipedia, and I can relate to that, but I think that promoting false and defamatory ideas about other projects, as well as being a page that is in contradiction with Wikipedia's own rules should trump this defense. Let me know if I can help some more. Merry Christmas and cheers! --GorgeousJ (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * Should pages that are defamatory, etc. stay up? In almost all cases cases no, but in this case, assuming #2 is true (I haven't given it the investigation it deserves), yes.  BUT, as with statues of Confederate soldiers that are currently a controversy in the United States, it should be set it in the proper context.  I would have no objections no __NOINDEX__ or even something akin to courtesy blanked but instead of that simple template, an template putting it in the proper context.  That in turn would link to a revision that looked like today's revision, minus the MFD, but with an introduction to explain why it was kept rather than deleted.  In short, "If #2 is true, then the historical importance goes UP, STRONG KEEP, if it is false, then a much weaker KEEP in light of the strength of your points 3 and 4.
 * After saying all of that, I recognize I am probably in the minority here. Those who agree with you that the page should be deleted just have a different point of view and weigh things differently than I do.  That is okay.  That's why this is a mutual listening session, not a vote.  I am listening.  My position has shifted since my initial "keep, just because it's historically interesting" to a more nuanced "if it is as bad as you say, then we must keep it but not for its original purpose, but rather as a history lesson" precisely because of the issues you raised and later clarified.  Thank you for raising them and clarifying them. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  01:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I told you that I sympathize with you, but I ask you to also be aware of my concerns. We have millions of pages to preserve, love and cherish on Wikipedia, ones that are helpful don't violate our policies, don't present explicitly and demonstrably false and defamatory information. I ask that you consider what you are voting for. If you are unsure, it is fine to refrain from voting, but I do think that keeping this article is very deeply problematic. Let me know if you have concerns. Thanks GorgeousJ (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken


 * Delete Arguments are very strong. Biased, not fact checked. Delete --2601:4C4:C207:5E50:D5D6:9A76:E0E7:3E2F (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — 2601:4C4:C207:5E50:D5D6:9A76:E0E7:3E2F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note #2 As stated above, Wikipedia already has a serious page discussing the fallibility of other sources. See here. This source is relevant, and does not contain demonstrably dishonest information. ThanksGorgeousJ (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * Delete There is no denying that the page contains way too many errors to even try to redeem. Best to delete it entirely.--96.44.72.120 (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — 96.44.72.120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  &mdash;SOCK comments stricken

I feel like we should wait until after the sockpuppetry investigation regarding the nominator is closed before resuming this discussion, in order to properly understand what to do with the potentially canvassed votes. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 02:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The investigation isn't going to result in the account being linked to IPs, I see no reason to close this. Just let it run its course, it's not like the meatpuppetry and trolling (comments like "Wikipedia is not a serious/reliable source Sorry, neckbeards" and "Hey, as an alternative to Wikipedia, which is generally more reliable, Britannica or Conservapedia?") isn't obvious and it would be taken into account by the closer, there has only been 1 delete !vote by an actual registered user. Dylsss(talk contribs) 03:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. We should judge the discussion by the merits of the arguments. Our side demonstrated that the article is defamatory, fraudulent, misleading, anti-intellectual, un-Wikipedian etc. and we have not seen any rebuttals to the points we brought up. GorgeousJ (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * I haven't read much of the discussion here at all, it doesn't really matter, the meatpuppetry has already derailed this discussion. This is the most amount of IP !votes (11) I've ever seen in a deletion discussion, and on what, a page which gets under 20 views a day, there were already 3 IP !votes in support before this discussion was even listed properly. Dylsss(talk contribs) 03:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not my problem. I have no connection with these IPs. I created this discussion to attempt to remove this very problematic page. That's all. I ask to be judged based on my arguments GorgeousJ (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * Even with the problems Dyliss pointed out, the arguments have been demonstrated above to be without merit. As has been pointed out by Deepfriedokra, the arguments boil down to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. There are also the problems with violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in the accusations. Teishin (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, has history, consider archiving. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note History is not a good reason for keeping a misleading and a fraudulent piece GorgeousJ (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)  &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * Gorgeous J. History is a good reason. “Fraudulent” is exaggeration, and “misleading” is nebulous. “Mistakes” are best corrected or archived, and the case for deletion has not been made.  Can you explain why this deletion discussion has attracted so much outside interest?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It does contain dishonest and deliberately fraudulent information. I have demonstrated it. It is absolutely defamatory, and it is important to me. If it's not important to you, that is fine. I sympathize with people who have different views. ThanksGorgeousJ (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken
 * In repeatedly claiming this page to be defamatory, are you or are you not stating you will consider pursuing legal action?--WaltCip- (talk)  13:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. I am not even in the same country where Britannica is headquartered.GorgeousJ (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC) &mdash;SOCK comments stricken


 * Delete Obviously contains undocumented material, and poorly written stuff. 2600:8807:2A00:E40:B43A:19CC:5B7:9683 (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC) — 2600:8807:2A00:E40:B43A:19CC:5B7:9683 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Of encyclopedic interest to the encyclopedists. Handy reference. No valid reason given. Simply, WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 10:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, noting the lack of merit to the delete arguments. Noting this page was created by a check user confirmed LTA. Noting the SPA's that look like WP:MEAT. Noting this probably meets the criteria for WP:G3. HAving said that, let it run it's course and let the closing admin determine consensus. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 17:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well said. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 23:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * added rationale per Zoozaz1 below -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 01:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - OP blocked as sock. Page semi-protected by . Consider speedy keeping as S4.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No objection to a procedural close, but the issues raised here have some merit, so speedy-deleting this discussion as outlined in WP:SKCRIT #4 is probably not the best outcome. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  16:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The page is useful, and, as User:Deepfriedokra says, there have been no valid delete arguments, just sockpuppetry and long-term abuse. I thank User:Ymblanter for semi-protecting this MFD page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - At this point we might as well continue the discussion rather than speedy-close it. The speedy action that was needed was against the sockpuppets and suckpoppets.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * * Comment and point of order GorgeousJ: using such loaded words as "dishonest" et al. unfairly knocks the motives of the many editors who have posted in all sincerity. Repeating heated comments weakens your argument, so Gorgeous, enough is enough, please leave well enough alone. I also object to the assertion that "there have been no valid arguments... just sockpuppetry." I am not a sockpuppet (there is a boat in boxes four and seven). In additions to other arguments above, my objection remains that the page claims to be more than it can be and will mislead readers. The first hit on a Google search Encyclopedia Britannica errors] is this page. Rightly but misleadingly it is not subject to our usual requirements for sourcing. BTW, the November 23, 2020 issue of The New Yorker has an article by Louis Menand titled "What Do You Know?", that talks of the Wikipedia/ EB rivalry, which strengthens my feeling that we should follow strict standards. ch (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia, 'Jeopardy!,' and the Fate of the Fact the same as the article you mention but under a different title? — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes,, the title in my paper copy is "What Do You Know?" but the subtitle is as you have it. The article at the link seems to be the same text. Thank you for asking me to make this clear.ch (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning it; I enjoyed reading it —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - sockpuppet nomination that failed to make a coherent argument for deletion; all but one of the comments favouring deletion have been meatpuppet "I don't like it" comments very obviously recruited off-wiki by the LTA nominator without even attempting to refer to any policy or guideline that would support this action. As for the one valid comment, that the page is "too difficult to monitor for sourcing", this page is not an article, and inline links and references have been provided where possible. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment that there appears to be an effort on the WP Discord server to get more meatpuppets on this AFD. Clearly editors are aware of meat puppetry but I wanted to make sure there they know where a vector is coming from. --M asem (t) 01:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I love how all but one of the delete voters are sockpuppets, and the only non-sockpuppet is on WP:MOSTACTIVE. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 19:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment & Query I followed the link and found that I was the one referred to as the "only non-sockpuppet" and am somewhat chagrined to be in the company of sockpuppets. There must be issues that go over my head. I do not know where or how to tell who is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet or what the evidently outside force is trying to accomplish. I do want to steer clear of it and apologize if I stepped in without adequate information.
 * I also do not know what to make of User:JJPMaster's comment "I love how... [he] is on WP:MOSTACTIVE". Again, have I stepped in it or stepped in over my head? If so, would someone please let me in on the secret so I won't cause trouble or misunderstanding in the future? All the best in any case.ch (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ch, I think the point being made is that while there's room for differences of opinion here, your opinion is the only respectable one in favor of deletion, and it's the only one anyone need take seriously. Teishin (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying!ch (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The page was archived in the past, but for some reason someone reverted it. The page contains untrue information, is unsourced often, and is unrelated to Wiki mission. Macuka1 (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — Macuka1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Most of the delete votes are not grounded in policy and ignore that this is not subject to our editorial guidelines since it is in the Wikipedia namespace. Useful purpose to show the fallibility of any source, no matter how reliable it is considered.   Zoozaz1    talk   01:39, 29 December 2020 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.