Are they valid?

(According to several articles, Garrett Wilkinson is another name of wiki user GdawgGamerTV.)

  1. Articles on numbers by Garrett Wilkinson are created by GdawgGamerTV.
  2. "Sources" of those articles are "N U M B 3 R - P 3 D 1 A", which is a web site created by GdawgGamerTV.
  3. The "source" articles in "N U M B 3 R - P 3 D 1 A" themselves are created by GdawgGamerTV.
  4. "N U M B 3 R - P 3 D 1 A" refers to this wiki as a unique source. (Therefore it is a circular reference.)

If it were just a personal web site, then it might not be a problem. However, there are several articles on numbers by others, and hence it seems to be intended to be an encyclodia as its site name implies. Then, due to the current rule, aren't they articles without "good" external sources? If we accept that an encyclopedia can be a source as long as it is the first source, then it is not problematic. But at least, the current rule rejects them, right? (I note that even if it is intended to be an encyclopedia, all of contributors seem to be the same person with different names. Therefore it might be better to regard it as a personal site instead of an encyclodpedia.)

p-adic 15:10, January 16, 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, this site is very likely a Google personal site that is disguised as encyclopedia. You might notice that there is no possibility of registering new account on this site so that you can edit it. Triakula (talk) 15:26, January 16, 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I know it. That is why I guessed that all of the contributors are the same person with distinct names. If nobody disagree with the validity, then I will remove the deletion tag on two articles, which I put. Do you agree with the validity?
p-adic 22:56, January 16, 2020 (UTC)
I agree, this is a valid source. Triakula (talk) 05:00, January 17, 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the validity. It's a personal site which looks like it was set up in 5 minutes for the sole purpose of being able to add the numbers to the wiki. No other wiki would accept such a source.

Also, it is obvious that the guy spent zero time actually thinking about his numbers. They are just random salads with random names. It's exactly these kinds of articles that turn this wiki into a joke. Seriously, what possible good could come from having articles like this? Plain'N'Simple (talk) 05:25, January 17, 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the opinion. Since it is not valid for you, I keep the deletion tag. Now we have two issues on the articles:
  1. The "source" looks to be created directly in order to put it as a source of the article in this wiki.
  2. The numbers looks salads without effort.
The former condition is related to the validity as a source, while the latter one is related to the significance of the article. For example, there are several other articles whose source are google documents or something like that. To be honest, I created such articles on Japanese googology, because I thought that it is good for googologists abroad can study Japanese googology. (They are not salads.) Also, there are many other numbers created by using existing systems. (i) Should we rejects the articles in this category because they satify both of two? (ii) Or should we rejects other articles satisfying either one of them?
Anyway, it is not good to put deletion talgs on all articles in the category, and hence I will ask an admin to delete them, if the argument converges to the direction of the deletion. In order to argue on the topic, please tell me which one of (i) and (ii) you agree with? (My personal preference says that some of salads are good. If we should reject salads, we need more concrete rules.)
p-adic 06:28, January 17, 2020 (UTC)
It is an issue related to notability of subjects themselves, i.e. salad numbers which doesn't add new insights. In this sense, they may not need to exist on Wiki. But the source itself is not bad, consider the rule of our policy:
  • Self-published books, papers, and websites. Googology Wiki doesn't have a conflict of interest policy, and it's acceptable to write articles about your own work.
So I think it is not correct to delete these numbers under the current Wiki policy. Triakula (talk) 07:10, January 17, 2020 (UTC)
Niether of the two issues are deal-breakers. Self-published material is obviously permitted and at times even encouraged. Salad numbers might also be okay in certain situations. The problem here is that this guy has done absolutely nothing, except list a bunch of random numbers and give them random names. Anybody can do that with zero effort. In fact, this guy put more effort into disguising his website as an encycloepdia, then he did into creating his numbers.
So what's the point of having articles like this one? Do we actually need a written rule that says "things that were obviously created for the sole purpose of gaining recognition with zero effort are not allowed" for us to realize that they shouldn't be allowed? Plain'N'Simple (talk) 07:49, January 17, 2020 (UTC)
Well, it may be okay to delete them if they're indeed so low quality. Triakula (talk) 08:00, January 17, 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is not so bad even if we allow such numbers without efforts. If we decide to make a rule to reject them, then it is ok. Otherwise, it is good to keep them, because they are harmless. If we allow to reject harmless articles which are not violating rules, then I am afraid that the community policy will be unclear for users in the future. If we do not like those articles, we should creat rules or clearer guidelines.
p-adic 09:51, January 17, 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree that it is harmless. Turning the subject matter of this wiki into a complete farce is anything but harmless. It's not a matter of "liking" or "disliking", which imply some kind of personal preference. It's about giving the subject at hand the proper respect it deserves.
And I'm all for making these requirements clearer to future users. Sure, why not? We should make it perfectly clear that this isn't some kind of "joke wiki" and that people are expected to put some actual thought into their contributions. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 10:07, January 17, 2020 (UTC)
OK. Although I do not agree with the harmfulness, it is good if admis will delete them after we make clear rules or guidelines.
p-adic 10:20, January 17, 2020 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.