The impotence of the rules was evident in your own pathetic vote....
Eh?Keep as meeting GNG, per Levivich. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I invite you to explain what you meant, with reference either to the GNG and the sources available, or whatever it is you think Levivich said which serves the same purpose. If you can't, then the charge of you having shit for brains, and the Wikipedia rules governing Afd failing to do their job and not waste everyone's time debating the merits of arguments made by people with shit for brains, stands.
Wade wanted this article to be kept. But creating an air of undeserved intellectual legitimacy to the opposition, and off the back of it even a fake sexism/racism controversy to further her victim narrative, that was a clear second best outcome for her.
If she can't get Phelps included for her achievements, she will try to get her included because Wikipedia was not impressed with her achievements, and who really cares if the reporters she induced to do that were duped into writing utter garbage. It's sick. You're sick.
There are currently three sources in the draft backing up this idea Wikipedia somehow got it wrong, that people like yourself are correct, and you not succeeding is somehow a mistake.
Well, let's examine the credentials of these sources to be saying anything at all about what Wikipedia does or doesn't do......
https://www.fastcompany.com/90339700/a- ... st-problem
Fake news. Easy to fact check basic details like this, so why didn't they? Because it undermines their preconceived reason for writing the piece?Anyone can flag a Wikipedia page for any reason. They don’t need to ...... know anything about the content of the page they flag.
Nonsense. Again, easy to verify for an unbiased writer.So it came as a surprise when, on February 1, Wikipedia moderators bypassed the step of calling to improve Phelps’s page and instead went directly to recommending it for deletion.
Fuck off. As this debate showed, Wikipedia is so desperate to recognise the achievements of "hidden" people like Phelps, it is allowing their employers to be the arbiters of what is considered a significant achievement. Try getting that approved for sports people, or artists, or heaven help us, politicians. Phelps was deemed not worthy even in an environment which has stacked the deck for reasons of supposed media indifference.Although it’s commendable that Wikipedia acknowledges its own biases, the site’s criteria for notability continue to devalue the achievements of people like Clarice Phelps.
As far as you know? So, even after to spoke to the claimed expert, whose private Tweet to Wade kicked off all this controversy, you're still not prepared to say definitively that Phelps is a trail blazer? But Wikipedia should? Even though there is still no clarity on whether this claim covers all elements, or just superheavy ones.As far as we know, Phelps was the first African American woman to play such a pivotal role in introducing a new chemical element to the world.
As above, no. The fallout from the Phelps controversy merely reinforced the already widely held view that for assessing the importance of academics, mainstream media coverage is not required. They don't even require independent sources, her employer would be enough. Phelps couldn't clear the bar even in a environment where the bar has been lowered solely for the rather obvious reason that Wikipedia is desperate for campaigners like Wade to write as many women scientist biographies as she can, so Wikipedia can stop being accused of being sexist. It's an unfortunate side effect of this moronic approach has meant that all this has done, is mean more biographies for men can be written.a common problem lay in the fact that systematic discrimination against women and, specifically women of color, in the sciences meant her work hadn’t been celebrated in the mainstream press the way that of her white, male counterparts had.
Perhaps because Wikimedia have nothing to do with whether Phelps gets a Wikipedia page or not?Wikimedia did not immediately respond to the Daily Dot’s request for comment.
https://cen.acs.org/physical-chemistry/ ... eps/97/i18
A claim that was quickly deleted because it could not be verified, not even to attribute this idea she may have possibly been first, to a named person with the credentials to be making such a claim. A situation that still exists, because said expert has been deliberately evasive over exactly what he is saying, and has thus far only said it on Twitter.The page had been created because Phelps is possibly the first black woman to help discover a chemical element.
Boo fucking hoo. I still don't have my flying unicorn car.Much to our dismay, Wikipedia has not yet restored her page.
Absent any new developments of changes in policy, there is nothing that can be added to this draft that will change the outcome of a third attempt to get it published. But Wade has asked anyway. And is ignoring the replies too. What do the rules say about that, Timmy? I seem to recall they say asking the same question repeatedly because you are either too stupid or too stubborn to accept the previous outcomes, is a Bad Thing.
The next battle will be fought when Chapman's book is published. The rules will be ignored then too.