Alex
Administrator
Let them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_TsakirisEither that or just change the page title to one that is more suitable for the page content like... "Ben Radford's and Mark Edward's unchallenged emotional rants about an author they don't like."
But seriously tho... I've never gotten involved with Wikipedia, so I'm not sure...
I see that they have a number of possible reasons for deletion. Which reason is cited here?
why?Let them.
why?
Because there is no benefit to appearing in Wikipedia.why?
why?
Alex, What category of radio shows/podcasts do you see Skeptiko placed? In reviewing Stichers list, would it be labeled as Science and Culture? High placement within that category would give objective statistics to support your effort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Tsakiris
You would think the page would be deleted on the grounds that it was just set up to harass Alex, but they are saying it's because he isn't famous enough.
One of the big arguments over at Sheldrake's wikipedia page was regarding the opening sentence, specifically whether or not the the socially inept imbeciles-for-editors would allow him to be labeled a biologist. The argument went something like -- Sheldrake hasn't done any research in biology within the past so-and-so number of years, therefore the opening sentence will read, "Rupert Sheldrake is an author, pseudoscientist and researcher of the paranormal..." There are probably over fifty thousand words on his 'talk' page arguing over that introductory sentence and why he can't be called a biologist.
All the while according to Wikipedia, "Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, author and..." Of course, beyond his degree Harris has never worked in the field of neuroscience. To my knowledge, nobody had ever pointed this out in the many words wasted arguing with the lunatics editing Rupert's page. So there you go.