Talk:Centre for Fortean Zoology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on cryptozoology and cryptids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Penn & Teller
Anyone see the P&T Bullshit episode on these goons? Clearly they do not deserve ANY mention on Wikipedia - they only maintain this page to give credence to a thoroughly laughable "science". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.121.164 (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nomination for Deletion of Article
At least three of this article's contributors--Lazarusx (Jonathan Downes, CFZ editor, primary author), BillPetrovic (Bill Petrovic, CFZ staff writer), and Emperor (CFZ staff writer)--work for the subject of this article. The article showers praise on the organization. Also notice that all of the article's references and external links are CFZ sources. I am therefore nominating this article for deletion as spam. Schlegel (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Spam
DGG, I recently nominated the article Centre for Fortean Zoology for deletion as spam, but you removed the nomination, citing that you did not believe the article fit the category. I would like to note that the article was written by the directors of the organization, cites only organization and director publications as sources, contains links to the organization's website added by a director, and contains several self-aggrandizing passages such as, "...is the only professional, scientific and full-time organisation...", "...is now a truly global entity...", "...has carried out an unparalleled programme of research and investigation all over the world...", "...is the largest single publisher of books on cryptozoology in the world...", "...film includes a very funny guest appearance...", "The CFZ has an impressive range of publications to their credit...", etc. This reeks of advertisement. If you would not call this spam, I would still argue that the article was created by the organization for the sole purpose of drawing business to itself, and the manner in which the article is written has no place in Wikipedia articles. What is your basis for claiming that this article doesn't qualify for db-spam? Schlegel (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Spam
I am indeed Jon Downes, but I would like to make a couple of things clear. I have only got involved with editing my wikipedia entry, the CFZ wikipedia entry, and other related ones, because I actually believe in the wikipedia ideal of a free encyclopaedia edited by consensus opinion. For the record, Pill Petrovic is a sixteen year old boy who thought he was being helpful - he is NOT a staff writer for the CFZ or anyone else. I have no idea who Emperor is. I would think that even a cursory look at the fortean press over the past seventeen years would show that the CFZ is a bona fide organisation, and that I am exactly who I claim to be. As for expalnding the references, it is a job that someone with a few hours spare could do with no problem. If these articles are deleted, it will be - i feel - to the detraction of wikipedia, and just reinforce all the negative stereotypes that are beginning to spread about it --Lazarusx —Preceding comment was added at 14:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just added another seventeen references to external sources other than the CFZ. \I could have done more, but I have work to do this afternoon. I think I have made my point, and I qm removing the flags designating this page as not being impartial enough. If someone wants to change what I have written, or disagrees with what I have said please contact me Lazarusx (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
