Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackpotwatch

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. Many of those saying "keep" here approve of the idea of this being covered only in Quackwatch.. it already is. Mango juice^talk 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Quackpotwatch[edit]

Non-notable attack site. Site's author has long-running feud with notable site Quackwatch. Not even in top one million sites per Alexa. [1] No mentions of site in the press-- fails WP:WEB. Jokestress 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:WEB. Plenty of Ghits, but they seem to mostly be attacking (or praising) the subject. I couldn't find any independent "non-trivial published works," signs that it "has won a well known and independent award," or any indication that content is "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." Not-notable. Also, I'm suspicious of how all but one of the sources cited come from the same place. And all but one of the external links in this article come from the same two people. This seems to be a non-notable feud of narrow scope. Not encyclopedic. Scorpiondollprincess 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I suspect this account to be a sock puppet. I don't know of who, but the users brief edit history clearly shows someone who is not a newbie or unexperienced at Wikipedia rules and regs. -- Stbalbach 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Your immediate accusation of the nominator as a sockpuppet simply because they're new smacks of WP:ABF :( Please be civil. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the nominator is a sock puppet. -- Stbalbach 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa. The same applies to Scorpiondollprincess (talk · contribs), though. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say "just because they are new". -- Stbalbach 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. However, should Quackpotwatch be deleted, some of it will be copied over to Quackwatch under a criticism section, which is where it was originally. Either way there is a place for Quackpotwatch on Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 01:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough to be mentioned on Quackwatch. There are also lots of articles out there about this organization as it is usually mention in the breath following QuackWatch as the watch dog to the watch dogs. Levine2112 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Being mentioned on Barrett's website does not qualify Quackpotwatch as notable. If Quackpotwatch has been featured in a major national publication, please provide the references. See WP:RS and WP:WEB for what qualify as reliable sources and notable websites. Jokestress 06:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:WEB are guidelines, not policy. When it comes to deleting an article there needs to a heavy burden of proof on those who want to delete it. This article has been in existence a long time without complaint, there have been a substantial number of editors who have worked on it (I've personally invested many hours so has at least one other person), the website is well known (I could post google hit stats), and most importantly, the content of this website is *controversial* and there is always the concern of bias from those who wish to delete it. All these specific issues, in my mind, should be weighed in with the generic guidelines cited. -- Stbalbach 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. If you need an official policy, see WP:BLP. This page contains defamatory statements about Barrett's credentials, among other things. None of these are properly sourced per Wikipedia policy. Jokestress 10:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Then edit the article. You mis-using AfD, AfD is not the place to air content disputes. -- Stbalbach 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point of the nomination. The entire site has failed to establish notability. It does not appear to qualify as a reliable source or merit an article, per guidelines and policies. Jokestress 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

People know about Quackpotwatch, it's been around a long time and has tons of google hits. It's a well-known site. Guidelines are guidelines for a reason, not every case can be easily fit into generic rules and guidelines are sometimes controversial.-- Stbalbach 05:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment the nominator Jokestress has this on her page -- Stbalbach 00:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I also run several websites on consumer issues, and I am a proud affiliate of Quackwatch.

Delete. Fails WP:WEB. The existence of a feud (I'm loathe to call this a "controversy") does not necessarily make a website notable. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing presented that indicates this website meets WP inclusion guidelines. The material in this article can be placed in the Bolen or Quackwatch articles. Gamaliel 06:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete Looks like a fork of Quackwatch. Before including any of this back there, we need evidence that it has some kind of authority. Just zis Guy you know? 10:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep either as an independent article or included in a criticism section on Quackwatch. Fred Bauder 12:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep the data in either this article or as a subsection at Quackwatch. WAS 4.250 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete. - Fails WP:WEB --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect into Quackwatch.--Eloquence * 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete. - Fails WP:WEB, We don't need another article on some whackjob conspiracy site. --mboverload @ 02:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete. - Fails WP:WEB as well as being a fork from quackwatch. Would be better to merge some of it back into quackwatch page. David D. (Talk) 04:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that this is an 'attack site' or that the site's owner has been in a long running feud with another site's owner has nothing to do with whether or not this is an article we want to keep. Stanfordandson 05:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete, redirect to Quackwatch. Per WEB, NOT a promo tool for every nutcase with a website and a Cause. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:WEB miserably. Main content of website is conspiracy theories and libelous statements. No documentation. Admits under deposition his vicious lies are just "euphemism." No evidence of reliability or credibility. Nothing but opinions prefaced with "I believe" and "I think." -- Fyslee 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Appears as notable as Quackwatch. Really they are both talking about the same guy, just different POVs. Probably not able to merge. You'd end up with edit wars. Dematt

Actually quackwatch seems to be a consortium of professionals, mostly MD's. There is a founding member (as you mention, the same guy), but the Quackwatch article is not primarily about him. Quackwatch (the web site) seems to have had a lot of press from NYTimes as well as an article in Time magazine. The same guy is also mentioned in those articles, which makes sense, since he founded the web site. It appears that quackpotwatch is not close to that level of notability. This should not be about the same guy but about whether the web site is notable or not. At present, quackpotwatch is not notable, even if it does focus on a notable guy. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe my interpretation of WP:WEB is incorrect, but to me the first criterion for Web notability is stated as;

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

To me, it means the information within the site. Thus I interpret; both sites are dealing with the same information from different POVs. Am I wrong? --Dematt 14:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't interpret it that way, otherwise there could be wiki articles on any personal web site about Barrett. Besides the Quackwatch article is not about Barrett, it is about an organisation that comments on a wide variety of 'quack' related practices. The difference is that Quackwatch is a recognised critic of an idustry whereas quack pot watch is not a recognised web site and it only critiques a web site. More to the point it focuses its critiques only one individual, despite the fact that quackwatch appears to be more than one individual. In time quackpotwatch may establish its self as a reliable source of information regarding the 'quack' industry. At present it does not seem much more than a personal web site that is not recognised by any reliable source. David D. (Talk) 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Provides original insight on Stephen Barrett. I have read many articles where this website is referred to, both on and off of Barrett-related sources. TheDoctorIsIn 20:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:WEB. -AED 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep An article should not be deleted because disciples are upset it insults their cheerless leader. Notable in that it watches the self-appointed, so-called 'watchdog'. Perhaps Quackwatch should be considered for deletion for using WP as a link farm to drive traffic and donations to a private corporation and using the 'non-profit' profits for the sole pleasure of it's owner . Steth 14:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep I agree with the comments stated above about keeping the article. CuTop 22:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Or maximally merge with QuackWatch. JFW | T@lk 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Brings a balance to the "spin" of quackwatch.--Hughgr 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. If I made the site WatchingQuackpotwatch.org it wouldn't be notable either. Adelord 01:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Very relevant principles from Jimbo Wales[edit]

"We have how many new articles a day? If people had the good sense to nuke 100 articles a day, just on the grounds of being BAD in the sense we are discussing (having unsourced claims about living people which would be libel if false), our growth rate would hardly suffer at all.

"We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it." - Jimmy Wales, May 19, 2006 [2] Emphasis added - Fyslee -- Fyslee 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Quackpotwatch makes no "unsourced claims about living people which would be libel if false" .. indeed you wrote most the article yourself! Jimbo is referring to Wikipedia articles, not other web sites. As for the actual site making unsourced claims, the same could be said for Quackwatch - they are magazine articles (at best), not sourced journal articles. Anyway, this whole section is inappropriate in a vote page and probably violates some rule. -- Stbalbach 05:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD is a debate, not a vote. The above is appropriate enough, just not obviously relevant. Just zis Guy you know? 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough (although comments are suggested to be in bulleted format and not separate section headers). The majority of AfD's are done on the grounds of "notability", which is not a policy -- see this interesting post (which I found as recommended reading on the Wikipedia: Articles for deletion page), for some thoughts on notability as a cause for deletion. -- Stbalbach 22:02, 24 July 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.

anhducwiki7

Saturday, November 20, 2021