Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 30 December 2014

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: No consensus, 7 July 2012‎, see discussion. No consensus, 11 August 2011, see discussion. Keep, 15 June, 2006, see discussion. No consensus, 10 May 2006, see discussion.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astronomy Bottom‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Websites: Computing This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Factual errors in article

Tha article claims that the forum of Universe Today allows "discussion" of against the mainstream ideas. This is not accurate. The fact is that the rules of the forum require against the mainstream ideas to be defended by the original poster by himself against any and everone who wishes to dispute, disparage, and dismiss. The moderation of the forum claims that "this is how science works", this is like a 'peer review', this is like defending your thesis before a college review board". This is not true. Legitimate peer boards are composed of experts in the subject matter and who make specific criticisms. Not just anyone in the world with a keyboard. 98.164.98.44 (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The claim of "millions of viewers per day" is false. At any given time there are as many as 400 unregistered viewers and usually up to 60 registered viewers and as few as 10 registered viewers. this information is on the first page of the forum.

The forum claims to have as many as 60,000 members but this includes all members that have ever registered including banned members, inactive members and spammers. 98.164.98.44 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This page is about discussion of the article, not critique of the website.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --197.208.195.201 (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

... because there is no reason for deleting it.145.97.223.96 (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Serious Issues with Neutrality

Earlier versions of this article was clearly strongly oriented POV material from either related parties or Universe Today itself. It clearly violates WP:SPIP Although I have greatly modified it to have a neutral POV, this page still should be considered for deletion unless it can be proven it is not just existing for self-promotion. Anyone associated with this news website should carefully read Misplaced Pages:Autobiography before future editing. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with much of your wholesale removal of content. Much of it was not "promotional" at all, and your arguments against citing the website itself are spurious. For example, it is perfectly acceptable to cite UniverseToday for their own position on reporting news-embargoed stories. Reyk _YO! 18:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss before reversing reverting edits. Is is clear that the statement by Emily Lakdawalla is totally irreverent for an entry because it implies a WP:NPOV. I.e. It just endorses the website. I will remove it again, and would suggest that you discuss this and get consensus rather than opinion. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Astronomy articles
• Bottom-importance Astronomy articles
• Start-Class Astronomy articles of Bottom-importance
• Start-Class Websites articles
• Unknown-importance Websites articles
• Start-Class Websites articles of Unknown-importance
• Start-Class Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles
• Start-Class Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles