| Revision as of 22:13, 18 May 2018 editGorillaWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators119,011 edits re← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:21, 18 May 2018 edit undoMiacek (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,481 edits reNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| *'''Keep''' how can anything that has Ghits be "fringe theory" not worthy of inclusion? For comparison, "]" has Ghits.] ] 21:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' how can anything that has Ghits be "fringe theory" not worthy of inclusion? For comparison, "]" has Ghits.] ] 21:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC) | ||
| *:Since I was the one who linked you to ] in , I know you know that's not a suitable argument for notability. Even if it were, that wouldn't allow editors to create articles based on unreliable sources. ] <small>]</small> 22:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC) | *:Since I was the one who linked you to ] in , I know you know that's not a suitable argument for notability. Even if it were, that wouldn't allow editors to create articles based on unreliable sources. ] <small>]</small> 22:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC) | ||
| **First, the ] guideline is much more nuanced than you claim it is; a very high number of Ghits clearly shows a term is widespread. Second, why did you ignore my point on "homoflexibility" and similar articles? The article ] has wholly 3 sources and reads like a dictionary definition, are we gonna delete this one, too? Wouldn't that be bigoted? What about a much wider phenomenon then? ] ] 22:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:21, 18 May 2018
Beta provider
- Beta provider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article based on two sources; treats a fringe theory as fact. One source is an article on a pick-up artist website called "Girls Chase: Get Girls Chasing YOU". The other is a book titled This Black Hole: Anacostia Diaries Continued by Francwa Sims. It's published by a vanity press by quite the eccentric author (see the title page, which identifies the book as: "This Black Hole - The Anacostia Diaries Continues // A Continued Personal Chronicle of the Years Beyond 2000-Plus. Started in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Eight Under the Authority of His Excellency, King Barack I (President Barack H. Obama) // May God Save the United States of America and His Excellency, King Donald I (President Donald J. Trump)". The article itself includes such statements as "especially if the woman is under some duress such as being a single mom (perhaps from one night stands with various alphas)". GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep how can anything that has 53,500 Ghits be "fringe theory" not worthy of inclusion? For comparison, "homoflexible" has 54,500 Ghits.Miacek (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Since I was the one who linked you to WP:GHITS in this discussion, I know you know that's not a suitable argument for notability. Even if it were, that wouldn't allow editors to create articles based on unreliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- First, the WP:GHITS guideline is much more nuanced than you claim it is; a very high number of Ghits clearly shows a term is widespread. Second, why did you ignore my point on "homoflexibility" and similar articles? The article Bi-curious has wholly 3 sources and reads like a dictionary definition, are we gonna delete this one, too? Wouldn't that be bigoted? What about a much wider phenomenon then? Miacek (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)