575:(The Boston Globe should be pretty reliable). Watson is easily one of the most well known women within the skeptical movement (which isn't just her small clique). Founder of a notable organization. Co-host of the SGU, a notable podcast which is one of the most popular science podcasts on iTunes. Winner of the PRTQ. Spoken at The New Humanism conferece and the notable The Amaz!ng Meeting. Guest on other notable podcasts. She even has an astroid named after her! References should be cleaned up, but primary sources are here used to show history within a project, other dead-tree sources can show that these projects exist and are notable.
649:. I see the Boston Globe as one of the sources, and there are a couple other non-trivial sources cited. That's enough. (As usual if there is anything really dangerous under BLP, then remove it). This could almost be seen as a test case for demonstrating how outdated Knowledge (XXG)'s notability standards are with regards to blogs, YouTube, etc. News flash: pretty soon there are likely to be more so-called "trivial" sources than "traditional" sources as more people decide to bypass traditional print in favor of blogs they can do themselves.
1020:
competition - and did not eventually get a radio show and thus challenges the 'notable' element. The rest are mostly links to non-mainstream media, a few panel appearances or amateur group presentations (none of them show she has relevant qualifications like
Stackpole, Shermer or Randi, being a copywriter and a former retail seller at a magic store - any evidence of her magician standing?) - I'm finding it odd to argue that that it isn't a vanity page considering the drive of the forum linked to is hosted by her at skepchick.org.
677:
articles), and we're not using other blogs as sources for what skepchick has done. But, for example, a good source for claiming that skepchick have sold skepdude calendars since 2007 is to link to the actual pages where they sold them. It's kinda obvious. A good source for what a blog post said is to show the actual blog post. We've clearly shown Watson is notable, and first-hand sources are only used to demonstrate the history of her projects, the projects themselves are written about in newspaper articles.
69:
930:
As a point of order, none of the people participating in this edit are "friends" of the person in question. Many are fans of her podcast, but last I checked, it was not against wiki policy to edit pages about subjects that interest you. None of the editors are acting under coercion from Miss Watson,
424:
For canvasing reasons I totally accept that it should be noted and is relevant, thats the purpose of the not a ballot tag to my knowledge, what is irrelevant is the name calling. Knowledge (XXG) does not have any rules regarding the civility of discussions that take place offwiki and that portion of
971:
MArcane is right, none of the editors personally know
Rebecca Watson. They follow her podcast, and some read her blog. As for your question, Cornswalled, the answer is 'no'. Not every podcast star gets a Knowledge (XXG) page. The reason that Rebecca Watson does, is that she has been covered on
676:
That's a straw man. Nobody was talking about peer reviewed journals and scientific papers. Only that if you're going to write about a podcast or blog, the podcast/blog itself will obviously be a very important source. We're not even saying it should be the only source (we have several newspaper
319:
I'd like to point out that the thread mentioned above isn't attracting votes from non-wikipedians. It's specifically stated in that thread that people who wouldn't otherwise get involved shouldn't do so. And "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments", no matter who makes them.
1019:
I would point out that the SGU podcast isn't one person and therefore makes her standing irrelevant (could this not just be on the SGU page?); the competition that makes up the majority of links denotes her as clinching a finalist position by her own online fanbase driving the votes for the
663:
And that wont's undermine the value of peer reviewed publications. Don't hold your breath to see FDA accept spammail advertisements as valid sources of drugs information. And until there, we will vehemently deny self-published blogs/youtubos/podcasts as reliable sources.
986:
Cornswalled, if you have evidence or logic this is a vanity page (for example, none of the notability links in the article or discussion match wiki's criteria) then you should table it. As far as I can see, you're just repeating the question before us.
425:
his comment, the portion not covered, is why it should be moved to the discussion section, along with this discussion. A note expounding on the tag would also be acceptable, not a discussion of how he has earned himself a great deal of dislike --
405:
This AfD has previously been reported at the administrative noticeboards. Moving AfD comments is tricky. I suggest, from now on, you leave the moving of comments in this AfD to the admins. In my opinion the above comments are germane, per
631:
The fact that most of the resources are from blogs and youtube has no bearing on the fact that some of the resources are notable dead tree media and she does have a large following of tens of thousands, not a small clique by any
525:. A winner of an NPR contest, an invited speaker to a major conference, subject of several major newspaper articles, founder of a notable group, written for a commercial magazine. Clearly notable within the skepticism movement.
829:
470:
offers some reliable third party sources to establish notability. At least one of them is properly cited in the main article itself. But yes, the cites in the article need cleanup.--
80:
237:
869:
806:. The use of unreliable sources can be addressed separately in the editing of the article and does not take away from the presence of reliable sources that establish
691:
I think that what he is trying to say is that things like peer reviewed journals aren't going to switch to blogs and so wikipedia shouldn't either; it's a
593:
I've changed some of the first-party sources with reliable third-party sources now. More can be done, but there can be no doubt
Rebecca Watson is notable.
896:
Does every random podcast "star" get heir own advertising page on
Knowledge (XXG)? Isn't this the very definition of a "vanity page?" 4 November 2008
850:
She has been the subject of multiple published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
946:
to reveal the side conversations of users who were simply trying to improve wikipedia articles on members of the podcast they listened to. Isn't
781:
the double standard that punishes a new editor and lets a known troll off scot free really shows a great deal of fair and even handedness --
633:
89:
778:
It shows a very fair system when I get chastised for moving someone else's comments but they do not fer restoring them and removing mine
244:
This article relies almost entirely on primary sources, falling back on other blogs, podcasts and youtube videos to fill in the gaps.
119:
204:
199:
17:
912:
208:
614:
notability well established via third party sources. If they name a celestial body after you, you're likely to be notable - Jeez.
191:
736:
105:
467:
248:
article which has not attracted any significant coverage from reliable third parties (emphasis on the "reliable" part).
1066:
699:, its still a fallacy he just didn't word his comment carefully enough to point to what he was really talking about. --
390:
Nothing in this note section is relevant in any way shape of form to the notability of the article it should be moved--
36:
815:
977:
559:
726:
I expected actually to need to look up some sources myself, but the Watson article pretty self-evidently passes
151:
1065:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
257:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
637:
515:
1043:
1029:
1014:
1001:
I would agree, once you filter out the personal feelings that podcasts are not notable all that is left is
996:
981:
963:
916:
900:
887:
859:
841:
819:
790:
769:
741:
708:
686:
671:
658:
641:
623:
602:
584:
563:
534:
517:
494:
479:
451:
434:
419:
399:
379:
353:
329:
313:
265:
135:
109:
52:
811:
94:
1025:
908:
882:
502:. If she was notable only in her clique she wouldn't be asked to be a speaker at the same conference as
377:
727:
1021:
904:
1002:
973:
837:
765:
682:
598:
580:
555:
503:
415:
325:
407:
277:
756:. I have restored the comments. Opcn has been blocked 24 hours for edit warring per a complaint at
572:
543:
250:
195:
951:
1034:
As I understand it voting was only part of the process, there was also judging, like by judges --
731:
654:
551:
511:
141:
68:
959:
291:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
753:
992:
876:
547:
530:
507:
487:
article is an effort by her friends to promote her. Not notable outside her small clique. --
475:
365:
803:
757:
723:
245:
932:
855:
833:
761:
678:
665:
618:
594:
576:
488:
411:
339:
321:
307:
1039:
1010:
786:
749:
704:
692:
447:
430:
395:
349:
187:
58:
807:
650:
955:
169:
157:
125:
49:
942:
related articles, instigating edit wars in all of them, and has gone as far as to
510:. The references definitely need cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. -
225:
546:. There are major third-party reliable sources about Rebecca Watson. Articles in
104:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
988:
526:
471:
851:
615:
554:, among several other papers/magazines, demonstrate notability beyond doubt.
1035:
1006:
782:
700:
696:
443:
426:
391:
345:
294:, where skepchickers are calling wikipedians (specially yours truly) "
752:
was removing others' relevant comments from the AfD, which violates
1059:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
931:
so I can hardly see calling it a "vanity page." As a side note,
63:
972:
numerous occasions by several reliable third-party sources.
98:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
76:
http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/index.php?topic=15283.75
938:
has made a point of being contentious in this article and
88:
among
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
779:
232:
221:
217:
213:
410:. The AfD closer is allowed take them into account.
830:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
290:This discussion is attracting votes from the site
338:After three revisions to this state this editor (
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1069:). No further edits should be made to this page.
571:. Several dead-tree media sources listed on the
870:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
118:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
280:and the mention of this AfD at skepchick.org
802:Subject obviously meets basic criteria of
271:
92:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
954:as defined by wikipedia's own guidelines?
868:: This debate has been included in the
468:Talk:Rebecca Watson/Archive 1#Notability
112:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
828:: This debate has been included in the
506:. Also, she's bloody got an article in
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
944:stalk the forums of an non-wiki site
24:
306:" and other nasty adjectives. --
67:
544:Talk:Rebecca_Watson#Notability
1:
442:Thanks for the Collapse Ed --
108:on the part of others and to
1044:03:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
1030:23:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
1015:01:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
997:13:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
982:12:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
964:00:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
917:22:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
888:14:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
860:00:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
842:00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
820:23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
791:15:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
770:15:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
742:06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
709:08:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
687:04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
672:04:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
659:03:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
642:23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
624:21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
603:22:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
585:21:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
564:21:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
535:20:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
518:20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
495:19:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
480:19:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
452:01:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
435:19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
420:18:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
400:15:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
380:12:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
354:13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
330:04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
314:02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
266:19:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
74:If you came here because of
53:18:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
78:, please note that this is
1086:
542:. This here says it all:
364:. User above is blocked.
344:) has violated the 3RR --
1062:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
950:the very definition of
695:argument rather than a
276:Discussion of possible
150:; accounts blocked for
120:single-purpose accounts
90:policies and guidelines
1003:Begging the question
504:Michael A. Stackpole
102:by counting votes.
81:not a majority vote
552:Skeptical Inquirer
44:The result was
936:
920:
903:comment added by
890:
873:
844:
740:
669:
492:
458:
457:
374:
370:
342:
311:
183:
182:
179:
106:assume good faith
1077:
1064:
934:
919:
897:
885:
879:
874:
864:
824:
747:Procedural note.
734:
724:that AN/I thread
667:
621:
548:The Boston Globe
508:The Boston Globe
490:
375:
372:
368:
340:
309:
272:
264:
260:
253:
235:
229:
211:
177:
165:
149:
133:
114:
84:, but instead a
71:
64:
34:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1067:deletion review
1060:
974:Stefan Kruithof
898:
883:
877:
619:
556:Stefan Kruithof
459:
366:
281:
263:
258:
251:
249:
231:
202:
186:
167:
155:
139:
123:
110:sign your posts
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1083:
1081:
1072:
1071:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
984:
966:
922:
921:
891:
862:
845:
822:
796:
795:
794:
793:
773:
772:
744:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
693:Slippery slope
644:
634:129.19.136.103
626:
608:
607:
606:
605:
588:
587:
566:
537:
520:
497:
482:
460:
456:
455:
440:
439:
438:
437:
385:
384:
383:
382:
333:
332:
283:
282:
275:
270:
269:
255:
252:coccyx bloccyx
242:
241:
188:Rebecca Watson
181:
180:
72:
61:
59:Rebecca Watson
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1082:
1070:
1068:
1063:
1057:
1056:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1036:Brendan White
1033:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:Brendan White
1004:
1000:
999:
998:
994:
990:
985:
983:
979:
975:
970:
967:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
937:
929:
926:
925:
924:
923:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
895:
892:
889:
886:
880:
871:
867:
863:
861:
857:
853:
849:
846:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
798:
797:
792:
788:
784:
783:Brendan White
780:
777:
776:
775:
774:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
748:
745:
743:
738:
733:
729:
725:
721:
718:
710:
706:
702:
701:Brendan White
698:
694:
690:
689:
688:
684:
680:
675:
674:
673:
670:
662:
661:
660:
656:
652:
648:
645:
643:
639:
635:
630:
627:
625:
622:
617:
613:
610:
609:
604:
600:
596:
592:
591:
590:
589:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
567:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
538:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
519:
516:
513:
509:
505:
501:
498:
496:
493:
486:
483:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
462:
461:
454:
453:
449:
445:
444:Brendan White
436:
432:
428:
427:Brendan White
423:
422:
421:
417:
413:
409:
404:
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
392:Brendan White
389:
381:
378:
376:
363:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
351:
347:
346:Brendan White
343:
337:
331:
327:
323:
318:
317:
316:
315:
312:
305:
301:
297:
293:
292:skepchick.org
289:
285:
284:
279:
274:
273:
268:
267:
262:
261:
254:
247:
239:
234:
227:
223:
219:
215:
210:
206:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
184:
175:
171:
163:
159:
153:
147:
143:
137:
131:
127:
121:
117:
113:
111:
107:
101:
97:
96:
91:
87:
83:
82:
77:
73:
70:
66:
65:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1061:
1058:
968:
947:
943:
939:
927:
893:
865:
847:
825:
799:
746:
719:
646:
628:
611:
568:
539:
522:
499:
484:
463:
441:
387:
386:
361:
335:
334:
303:
299:
295:
287:
286:
256:
243:
173:
161:
152:sockpuppetry
145:
134:; suspected
129:
115:
103:
99:
93:
85:
79:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1022:Canning1980
905:Cornswalled
899:—Preceding
878:Fabrictramp
728:WP:CREATIVE
952:Harassment
884:talk to me
834:Erwin85Bot
808:notability
762:EdJohnston
679:Ole Eivind
595:Ole Eivind
577:Ole Eivind
412:EdJohnston
408:WP:CANVASS
341:Damiens.rf
322:Ole Eivind
278:canvassing
86:discussion
697:straw man
573:talk page
142:canvassed
136:canvassed
95:consensus
913:contribs
901:unsigned
812:Jeremiah
732:Eldereft
651:23skidoo
632:means.--
304:fucktard
259:(toccyx)
238:View log
174:username
168:{{subst:
162:username
156:{{subst:
146:username
140:{{subst:
130:username
124:{{subst:
969:Comment
956:MArcane
940:several
933:Damiens
928:Comment
754:WP:TALK
666:Damiens
489:Damiens
362:Comment
308:Damiens
302:" and "
205:protect
200:history
138:users:
50:Spartaz
989:Mindme
894:Delete
804:WP:BIO
758:WP:AN3
527:Mindme
485:Delete
472:Boffob
246:WP:BLP
233:delete
209:delete
852:Fredb
737:cont.
722:From
300:idiot
296:dicks
236:) – (
226:views
218:watch
214:links
116:Note:
16:<
1040:talk
1026:talk
1011:talk
1005:. --
993:talk
978:talk
960:talk
948:this
909:talk
866:Note
856:talk
848:Keep
838:talk
832:. --
826:Note
816:talk
800:Keep
787:talk
766:talk
750:Opcn
730:. -
720:Keep
705:talk
683:talk
655:talk
647:Keep
638:talk
629:Keep
616:Wily
612:Keep
599:talk
581:talk
569:Keep
560:talk
550:and
540:Keep
531:talk
523:Keep
500:Keep
476:talk
464:Keep
448:talk
431:talk
416:talk
396:talk
388:Note
373:ANDA
369:ARTH
350:talk
336:note
326:talk
298:", "
288:NOTE
222:logs
196:talk
192:edit
46:keep
935:.rf
875:--
872:.
668:.rf
512:Mgm
491:.rf
310:.rf
170:csp
166:or
158:csm
126:spa
100:not
1042:)
1028:)
1013:)
995:)
980:)
962:)
915:)
911:•
881:|
858:)
840:)
818:)
810:.
789:)
768:)
760:.
707:)
685:)
664:--
657:)
640:)
601:)
583:)
562:)
533:)
478:)
466:.
450:)
433:)
418:)
398:)
352:)
328:)
224:|
220:|
216:|
212:|
207:|
203:|
198:|
194:|
176:}}
164:}}
154::
148:}}
132:}}
122::
48:.
1038:(
1024:(
1009:(
991:(
976:(
958:(
907:(
854:(
836:(
814:(
785:(
764:(
739:)
735:(
703:(
681:(
653:(
636:(
620:D
597:(
579:(
558:(
529:(
514:|
474:(
446:(
429:(
414:(
394:(
371:P
367:D
348:(
324:(
240:)
230:(
228:)
190:(
178:.
172:|
160:|
144:|
128:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
