

RIP Fravia - phn1x
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:mAp2zxYhBnoJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fravia+fravia&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

======
dnewcome
Are you reporting that he has passed? Or merely the death of his wikipedia
presence. He has been battling cancer...

~~~
chaosmachine
<http://www.searchlores.org/swansong.htm>

[http://www.2113.ch/phplab/mbs.php3/mb001?num=1241367858&...](http://www.2113.ch/phplab/mbs.php3/mb001?num=1241367858&thread=1241367858)

~~~
huhtenberg
Damn.

~~~
devicenull
I wish I had a better comment then that, but that's all I can come up with too

------
brl
Seriously, Wikipedia? You deleted Fravia's page for a lack of notability?

~~~
tptacek
They didn't delete the page; they replaced it with (an inauspicious) redirect
to "Reverse Engineering".

The discussion that led to this is here: <http://bit.ly/10rqEV>.

I can understand they logic behind this article being put up for AfD. It _was_
written poorly, in POV style. It _did_ do a poor job of establishing what was
notable about Fravia (you'd have to know something about his particular
reversing subculture to know why any of the claims in the article were
interesting).

And finally --- and most importantly --- the article did lack independent
sources establishing notability. Independent sourcing is not optional on
Wikipedia.

I don't think this is a place where the system failed.

~~~
huhtenberg
Poorly sourced article tagged for POV bias is better than no article.
Especially considering how much effort it takes to resurrect the article once
it's deleted.

~~~
tptacek
That argument is a slippery slope towards asserting there should be no quality
control on Wikipedia; any debatable WP article could be defended by saying
"tag it and hope for sourcing".

What people keep forgetting in these arguments is that WP isn't pronouncing a
final judgement on the topic; they're judging the article itself. If you
believe sourcing could be found for a topic, and a better article could be
written, go write it. There's a zillion "proven" articles in WP that need
maintaining; why argue about the ones people can't bother to bring up to some
minimal standard of quality?

------
mcav
Redirects to "Reverse Engineering". I assume you wanted this (google cached
version):

[http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:mAp2zxYhBnoJ:en.wikipedi...](http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:mAp2zxYhBnoJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fravia+fravia&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari)

------
I_got_fifty
Why does this article sound eerily similar to xkcd.com/341 - xkcd.com/345 ?

