RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Log

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Articles for Deletion main page

UCADIA | Result: ?[edit]

UCADIA (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Random woomeister website of which sources are all primary and dead. Appears to have no significance or notability. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    And yes I know I could just delete it myself as a sysop but I would prefer an AFD as it has been here for years and I don't like unilaterally deleting a page that has been here for so long. Lavalizard101 (talk)
    Some links are really dead, some seem to have temporary error. I've inserted archive links for the list of external links. It seems the early websites were partially replaced with new ones later, the text being dated. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. I had a look to see if i could contribute to the page and i seen the AFD and decided i agree with @Lavalizard101 on this , also as a Sysop who brings to note his thoughts rather than acting immediately and deleting shows very good faith to me , thank you Lava. David D (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    I've done some more work on it, and I think it's salvageable. I agree it's been very rough, but it's also been easy to find a few refs for improving it. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Exactly the kind of thing where RationalWiki can fill a gap by documenting non-notable organizations that have been compared to cults. It's not gone, it's not just websites (the description is sloppy), but there's a series of organizations. "Ucadia Foundation" (ucadia.org) describes it in various terms, but very vaguely. There's apparently various Ucadia societies worldwide with a number of registered members, they seem to have their own cryptocurrency, and their own products for members, and more. An archived older version has it that "As of SOL E1:Y4:A35:S3:M9:D5 [13th of June 2016] Ucadia became a confidential organisation with the myriad of satellite sites that once made-up the open source Ucadia network being taken down." --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. -Flandres (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Traditional values | Result: ???[edit]

Traditional values (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Just a collection of bullet points and unfunny snark with very little context and no references. Derivative of Good old days and Family values. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. Our page on Tradition is summoning most of this page aswell. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  3. Supremely unfunny and I have no idea why a defunct New Zealand environmentalist party is in the article. A somebody. (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  4. Not remotely funny , lacks reference also , bin. Teriyaki12 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  5. Delete this article , lacks any relevance.DecemberRebmeced (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. There probably is a line to be drawn between "traditional values" and "family values", though I'm not sure if conservatives who abuse the terms would bother. In any case, yeah, this page could use some more improvements. Luigifan18 (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. I like it. I want to keep it. It’s rationale. New world (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Merge with Appeal to tradition, put in redirect. The latter could do with some work too. But as usual with me, the original page must remain until this is done right. So consider this in a straight Delete/Keep fight as a vote for Keep [for now]. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. I second the motion to merge and redirect. It does seem to me like there are certain parts of this article could be salvaged, if properly cleaned up with some spit and polish. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 20:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  3. Merge with tradition Ioe bidome (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  4. Merge and redirect to Appeal to Tradition. FriendlySocDem (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  5. Merge with tradition sounds good to me RTD (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. I agree with KarmaPolice.-Flandres (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. I've removed the snark that was added today, unfortunately quality edits added alongside the snark were removed. Ioe bidome (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. Votes are 5-2-5, with 7 in favor of keeping the content in some form, so it's not a consensus in favor of deletion. Plutocow (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. 'Change must have a majority vote' - those five merge/redirects are a de facto vote for 'keep for now', so I would say the motion fails. And as it's been open over a month, time to pull the plug? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps, though you could also argue that the merge option succeeds as the middle ground, as there are 7 votes for the content existing in some form but 10 against it staying in its current form. Plutocow (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    We're kinda stuck until somebody makes a decent attempt to merge it into 'appeal to tradition'. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)