Pavlina page in Wikipedia?

[openmind]

Hi,

I've just checked Wikipedia to see if there is an entry about the Pavlinas and the page seems to have been deleted. Any idea as to why this happened?

[Markus74]

Somebody must have intended it and the Universe manifested it

[Savage]

There used to be a small page about me there last year. I was never involved in its creation. Then it got deleted... then recreated... then deleted again.

The main argument seemed to be "is this guy worthy of his own entry?"

[joelyle]

I believe that Steve is much more worthy than Bozo the Clown...

Bozo the Clown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steve has helped to introduce me to beliefs and people, as well as understanding of consciousness.

2006, by far, has been my greatest development year.

I want to know what material in Steve's Wikipedia entry created objection.
There seems to be fortified Infocracy built into Wikipedia. I have gained much from it; today I am not so happy...

Joe

[Shaden]

Sorry to dissapoint you all but the last time I checked Steve was amongst the banned list on Wikipedia. Quite an honour I'll have you know

It seems steve can't help but create controversy wherever he goes

[Savage]

The ban probably happened because people kept trying to recreate the entry after it was deleted. I don't know how Wikipedia works moderation-wise, so I'm just guessing about that. The entries I saw never contained more than a few sentences. But apparently the final ruling was, "He's not worthy."

What sparked the initial creation of that entry was most likely a link to my polyphasic sleep logs from this Wikipedia page:
Polyphasic sleep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those sleep logs remain incredibly popular to this day, and I still receive questions about polyphasic sleep every week, even though I stopped doing it in April.

[joelyle]

how could this subject be objectionable?

Polyphasic sleep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe there is a simultaneous rise in consciousness and unconsciousness.

[Adam]

It seems that the reason why Steve's page on Wikipedia is deleted and locked is because the content wasn't more than a few lines, and it was clearly biased.

If someone want to write an article that is longer than a typical high-school essay, is insightful, and is unbiased, then it probably will be easy to have that page re-appear.

If anyone is willing to undertake this project, I recommend including several sources that aren't found on stevepavlina.com or other people's blogs. News stories from respected, non-user-contributed sites will help, and sources from printed media are greatly preferred. Blogs don't count, sorry.

[Ann]

Here's a good start Well, sort of....

Las Vegas Convention Speakers Bureau Adds “A-List” Athletes to Roster of World-Class Speakers

[Michael Chui]

danah boyd got a lot of grief over her Wikipedia page because there was no indication that she was "notable", despite the fact that she's a public figure and a leader in her field.

You may have a rough time making that work out. Good luck.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Adam

It seems that the reason why Steve's page on Wikipedia is deleted and locked is because the content wasn't more than a few lines, and it was clearly biased.

If someone want to write an article that is longer than a typical high-school essay, is insightful, and is unbiased, then it probably will be easy to have that page re-appear.

If anyone is willing to undertake this project, I recommend including several sources that aren't found on stevepavlina.com or other people's blogs. News stories from respected, non-user-contributed sites will help, and sources from printed media are greatly preferred. Blogs don't count, sorry.

I do not wish to undertake such a project, but to anyone who does, you may find it useful to include this press release from the Las Vegas Convention Speakers Bureau as a source.

Steve talks about the Las Vegas Convention Speakers Bureau (which I will refer to as the "LVCSB" for the rest of this post) on the Paraliminals page on his website:

On November 11 I was scheduled to present an all-day Internet marketing workshop for the Las Vegas National Speakers Association. [...]

I had a great time and fully enjoyed every minute of it, even though I never knew what I was going to say from one minute to the next. The best part is that the presentation was very effective. [...]

Unbeknownst to me at the time, the audience included the owners of two different speakers bureaus. Afterwards they both independently told me the same thing: "You're a $10K speaker." That means they believed I could get bookings at $10,000 for a one-hour keynote -- and be a good value for the money. In fact, one of those bureaus, the Las Vegas Convention Speakers Bureau, now represents me, and they issued a press release to announce it only 4 days after my workshop. I'd never done a paid speaking engagement before this point -- the NSA workshop was for no fee -- but now I'm being promoted at $10,000 per speech. And based on my performance in the NSA workshop and considering other $10K speakers, I have to step back and conclude that's a fair price.

Some may argue that including the LVCSB as a source may look a bit dodgy/bias since they are representing Steve, but I'd consider them to be fairly reliable source and it probably wouldn't hurt to mention them in the Steve Pavlina Wikipedia entry, should one be created (and not deleted/banned again ).

[Brutha]

If you do the "Google test" you find 492,000 think about "Steve Pavlina". After wikipedias standart that should be enough for him being worthy his own article, doesn't it?

[Baltar]

The Steve Pavlina article had a discussion page which has been erased for some reason. It seems that there are people in admin positions of Wikipedia who have personal reasons for banning the article. Otherwise I don't understand why they'd erase even the discussion page, where some people were questioning why the main article has been deleted.

If you dig a little you can find this page. It's the only page that gives a reason for banning the article. There was a vote in March of 2006 where it was decided that Steve's site isn't popular enough (doesn't get enough traffic) to warrant a Wikipedia entry. Traffic has increased a lot since then though but the article remains locked. I guess we have to try contacting the admins.

[Adam]

An interesting thing to note:

At the time of that vote that Baltar linked to, where one person said that when Steve's traffic matched the traffic of other sites cited, he will deserve a page on Wikipedia, he was already matching the lowest of those sites according to Alexa. Now, he outranks four of the five other sites in terms of reach, rank, and pageviews.

"small time niche blog" eh?

[NightOwlNation]

I just recently learned that Wikipedia has a "notability" rule. They define notable and then say a person has to fit into this box. I discovered this when I went to look up Mouna Ayoub, generous philanthropist and owner of the sailing super-yacht, Phocea. Which has a very notable history of it's own (the story has even been featured repeatedly on the Travel Channel). And she, who in the male dominated world of super-yachts, sold a significant portion of her jewels to restore it, is now on the WikiP watch list. Notes said an editor/moderator of some kind had put her listing on probation (somebody seriously needs a hobby). Not notable enough, not enough links to and from, etc. So I added some links, hoping they'd let her info remain.

Since this experience, I'm not surprised they banned Steve's info but I'm horrified, nonetheless. I like Wikipedia, use it often and appreciate their overall mission. But this banning-craze is getting ridiculous. I'm relatively new here but Steve, IMHO, is already a notable teacher. Worthy of a WikiP nod - at least. Sheesh!

[dor]

i think james arthor ray's page was considered a vanity page and removed as well the moderators/admins are sort of in a group think mode now, i think and stick slavishly to some rather stupid rules...especially true for living persons bios

[ramon]

I wrote a short entry for John Demartini which was also removed shortly afterwards. The mistake i made was not citing any credible media sources to support John Demartini's notability. Each Wikipedia entry has a "talk" page where you can debate and discuss. The experienced Wikipedia editors and contributors will quickly point out which rules and regulations you are not adhering too.

Anyway someone else re-created the page with better layout, formatting and some good external references. Now I just checked before posting this and it's removed again. I'm not sure where this leaves the talk page - which I believe exists for each entry - while the specific entry exists.

I suggest we identify someone like Steve who has an entry and copy that format, layout and cite the necessary references. I'm willing to give it a shot if someone can send me the previous entry posted. I'll rewrite it and submit it and post the feedback.

Sincerely
Ramon

[Michael Chui]

When you've posted it up, let us know.