Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/ViXra

On closing the AfD the adminstrator made a comment that "There's agreement that this is a website of ... debatable scientific merit" This is untrue. Only one of the people involved in the discussion offered an opinion close to this. It is also untrue the the website viXra is of dubious scientific merit even if it may be host to articles of dubious scientific merit. It also hosts papers that have been accepted in peer-review journals. As the founder of viXra I consider this statement by the administrator to be blatantly dishonest and outrageously libelous. Since he has not responded I will look into the options for taking the issue further. Weburbia (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The closer was correct to say that "There's agreement that this is a website of ... debatable scientific merit" for the simple reason that the scientific merit of ViXra was debated in the AfD, extensively. Your comments above seem close to threats and I suggest you redact them. Xxanthippe (talk).
 * Your statement makes no sense. The fact that something was debated does not mean there was agreement that it was true, obviously. My "threat" is merely to find out what can be done within the rules of Wikipedia to correct a statement made by an adminstrator that is blatantly false and possibly libalous on a page which nobody is allowed to edit further. I think the rules require me to make it clear that I intend to do that first to give the administrator a chance to respond and correct the error himself or defend it. So far he has done neither. Anything else you might have thought I meant is in your imagination.Weburbia (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you devote your energies to improving the article to make it more resistant to future AfDs. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC).
 * It is clear that there are people here who would like to see the viXra article removed for their own political reasons. If I edit it they would be able to claim that it no longer has a neutral point of view and would ask for it to be deleted on that basis. I am not going to be drawn into that trap.Weburbia (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have warned Weburbia about not making legal threats. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not made any kind of legal threat. I have not made any kind of threat against the administrator who made the incorrect statement. My only "threat" is to try to correct a statement that is incorrect, dishonest and libellous. Weburbia (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, but then you might want to be more careful about how you word things. Using the legal term "libel" and at the same time making vague statements about "looking into the options for taking the issue further" could easily be (mis)interpreted as being a legal threat. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that some people would consider a site that hosts lots of papers of debatable scientific merit itself to be of debatable scientific merit. Whatever the viewpoint one my take, consider that the closing admin provided his good-faith interpretation of the result of the discussion. Nageh (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a good-faith interpretation. It is at best a misrepresentation. During the discussion I said " Your opinions on the value of viXra are not relevant to this dicussion. I dont agree with them but will not be drawn into an off-topic debate on that" This is the exact opposite of the claimed agreement. Concerning your claim that "a site that hosts lots of papers of debatable scientific merit itself to be of debatable scientific merit.", it is clear that your are confused about the purpose of a preprint repository. It is not a journal and does not peer-review its contents. It does not endorse submitted articles by accepting them. On viXra this is made clear in disclaimers linked from every abstract page. By your reasoning arXiv is also of debatable scientific merit because it also contains lots of articles of debatable scientific merit. Most of the articles on viXra are valuable to science. Many have been accepted in peer-review journals despite the fact that other repositories would not accept them. Thus viXra achieves its goals and is itself of value to science. Weburbia (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)