As I've mentioned on the vfd for this page, this article needs cleanup. I'll post a list of obvious problems:
- "The Infidel Guy remains one of the very few shows for freethinkers available on Internet radio." - remove the useless bold. Also a loaded sentence.
- "very active in the freethought community instigating cognitive dissonance wherever he goes" - BS language? Also loaded.
- "When he confronted them with the actual content of the Bible, they felt able to take charge of their own lives." - more loaded language: implies that the contents of the bible are bad. Also is poorly written.
- "Infidel Guy :: Rational radio and Debate - Critically examining what you believe to be true!" - can we tone this down so it doesn't seem so POV
- rernst 13:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To Proponents of this Page
I'll point out that none of: 1) being secular, or 2) having an agenda are why this article was VFD'd.
Also remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox - this is not a place to promote your views. It is an encyclopedia devoted to giving coverage to all sides of an issue. If you've got legitimate criticsm of Infidel Guy, then add it. - rernst 13:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Should This Page be a Redirect?
Rernst would you object if i redirect this page to Reginald Vaughn Finley, Sr.? I would like to resolve the issue you have with this page and i feel the other page isn't as objectionable. --Ic0n0 03:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who put it up for vfd, keep in mind, so it really wasn't my issue to begin with. But what I did take issue with was scads of anonymous users flocking to the article's vfd page to vote against its deletion. As self-appointed hammer of the wicket, I took it upon myself to fight against them. I presume you're new here since you really don't know how a lot of stuff works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose objective is to be fair to all sides: that's why articles which are solely vanity (Infidel Guy page was suspected of being such) and have only one point of view or slanted/loaded language are looked down upon.
As for infidel guy... his followers tend to make trouble in other media: I've had encounters with them before. When I saw the same thing here I was prepared to deal with it again. But, regardless of my own personal feelings, my loyalties here are to wikipedia. This means that I must be fair to all content. Doesn't mean I have to like the people making the articles: all I care about at the end of the day is whether the wiki is better off.
Initially, this article was so POV as to be considered vanity, which I think is why it was put up for vfd. Sometimes people can go overboard on vfd and add pages which probably shouldn't be there, but this was not one of those cases. Sometimes being on vfd means that the people who put an article up will care enough about it to save it that they improve it to a point where it's worth keeping.
Another reason for vfd-ing a page is if it is reagarded as non-notable. High Schools are popular items for this: students come here, find no page about their high school, and create one for it, despite noone earth-shattering ever coming from that school. This means that there are a lot of useless articles lying around that we must get rid of.
This article in itself really stresses the limit of that line about notability. I agree with you that we've already got an article that will do the job: it may just be a task of merging the two articles together... perhaps this could be a subsection of the other. The more I think about doing this, the better a solution it sounds.
All in all, it seems that the article will survive the vfd process. - rernst 04:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
One way or another he should only have one page (maximum, some of the voters say less than that), so one should be a redirect of the other. Both have very real NPOV problems, sa they are phrased as press releases and not encyclopedia articles. DreamGuy 04:43, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I am going to work on making this page redirect and then edit the other page to be more factual. I do agree that objectivity is the goal. --Ic0n0 04:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- OK, no, but what you did was not a redirect, it was still a full article (albeit one that had a sentence telling people to click a link to go to the other article). Worse, you removed the VfD notice, which you should not be doing. I reverted it. DreamGuy 04:55, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- What is the Correct way to do a redirect then? --Ic0n0 04:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don;t think you can do a real redirect and keep the VfD tag intact. When the vote's officially over you can do it. See Wikipedia:Redirect
- Thank you for the information, although i may seem ignorant I am just new to editing pages and learning the rules and Etiquette. Don’t misinterpret my actions as deliberately out of form, I simply didn’t realize the deletion tag had a time limit. --Ic0n0 05:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- We all start out new, I didn't register all that long ago myself. The votes for deletion notice itself on the page mentions that it should not be removed, so that's why I expected you to know that part. After the voting is over that should go away.
DreamGuy 09:57, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)