RationalWiki:Articles for deletion

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from RW:AFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
There are 3 pages marked for deletion:

Some articles on RationalWiki are ripe for assassination deletion. If you think an article fits this description (and there is no page that it could be better merged with, here are the steps to take to put it on this page:

  1. Add {{Article for deletion}} or {{Article for deletion|Reason}} to the top of the page you think needs deletion.
  2. Press the save button to get the rest of the instructions to populate.
  3. The second line of instructions that appear below the deletion template allow for pre-populating a discussion, click that button, replace the word "Reason" with your reasoning for wanting to delete the article.
  4. Lastly add {{RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/ReplaceMeWithTheArticleName}} to top of this list. Don't forget to change the ReplaceMeWithTheArticleName to the proper article name from step 3.

Please notify the creator/main editor(s), particularly if it's new.

Then wait a while and see what the mob thinks, unless there's an actual reason it needs to be taken out and shot quickly (e.g., severely problematic living person bio).

And don't forget to subscribe. This will allow you to see when a new article for deletion is added.

To archive:

  1. Edit the AFD page to change the result from "?" to "deleted" or "kept" or whatever.
  2. Go to RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Log and remove the {{PageToBeArchived}}.
  3. Go to the 2015 archives and add {{PageToBeArchived}} in the right spot.

[edit] Wiki (português) | Result: ?

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

[edit] Delete

  1. Most of this page is made up of a "how to guide" on wiki editing and several lists which seem to name every wiki that the article's creator knows, including Wikivoyage, a Portuguese "WikiBirds" and Pornopedia. Then there's all the stuff that used to be on the deleted "Wikipédia (português)" page and more of the same, including a cartoon which shows Jimbo Wales himself stopping most of the world from editing Wikipedia so he can keep it for himself and his friends. There's not much of any relevance to our mission here. Spud (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Not missional, impossible for just about any other established editor to collaborate on it or to meaningfully check out its quality. Purge this and all other similar articles. Show this guy how to start his own wiki. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Per AgingHippie; frankly I'm quite a lot put out that this keeps on coming up over and over again. PacWalker 14:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. Sou o autor do verbete. Por coerência voto por manter o verbete no RationalWiki. Discordo em alguns pontos: A Wikipédia em português possui verbetes sobre religião (exemplos: Madre Teresa de Calcutá, Chico Xavier, Testemunhas de Jeová etc.), sobre astrólogos (exemplo: Olavo de Carvalho) e sobre outros assuntos combatidos no RationalWiki. Além disso, o verbete é sobre qualquer Wiki (exemplos: CriaçãoWiki, Conservapedia, Metapedia etc.). Eu entendo que a Wikipédia (em português) é truculenta, partidária da Ditadura Militar (no Brasil), com administradores oportunistas que possuem motivações estranhas aos objetivos da Wikimedia Foundation. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    I'm hoping that makes more sense to you than it did to Google, because all I got were these tidbits: they have articles on notable subjects and there are Brazilians. PacWalker 16:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] RationalWiki:Chicken coop | Result: ?

RationalWiki:Chicken coop (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Delete

  1. Rarely if ever now used for problems that couldn't be resolved with common sense & direct communication. Tends to encourage needless drama & pathetic tattletale behaviour rather than sincere attempts at conflict resolution. I think we can cope without it. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. It's quite entertaining for the too-common "Editor X hurt my feelings" rants which is exactly why it needs to go. MarmotHead (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. As a conflict resolution system it rarely actually resolves conflicts when it is used properly anyways. --Miekal 22:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. Keep it for those instances where it is useful; encourage direct communication where appropriate. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    I'd agree if it were used more as a last resort rather than how it's actually used: as the place to say "She breathed on my side of the couch!". MarmotHead (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg It took him 0.2 seconds to lock the door. 03:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. It's a lightning rod, keeps drama in one place and facilitates mob decisions. Getting rid of the coop won't get rid of the drama, but it will allow it to spread all over the wiki. Tielec01 (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. --ZooGuard (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  5. I fail to see what would be achieved by deleting the coop. Any face to face stuff can simply (as Weaseloid just did) be copy/pasted to the relevant talk page, just like stuff more pertinent to the community standards can easily be copy/pasted to that forum with a notice attached. I think the coop remains useful for calling in the mob, but perhaps we shouldn't do that any more? ScepticWombat (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  6. What Tielec01 said. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  7. That, and what ScepticWombat said. It would be nice if we didnt have to do that any more, but given the self-selection of stroppy arseholes to be the usual run of RW contributors (and often useful ones) it's likely to keep on being needed. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  8. I third both Tielec and ScepticWombat. --Castaigne (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  9. See Castaigne's justification. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  10. I'm allowed to vote here, right? Anyhoohow, my thoughts have already been said. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 14:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  • Repurpose it for discussion and votes on site policies, because no one pays attention to RationalWiki talk:Community Standards and that's what it often ends up being used for anyway. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    Is this a disguised keep vote? :P FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    Depends on how you define a keep vote. I only wanna keep the title and the ONOZ and keyboard-assisted suicide pics, since those seem to motivate people into discussing and voting on things. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    I feel like that might have more to do with the "editor X is in trouble" aspect, but who knows? PacWalker 03:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    Quite possibly, but just being historically associated with that aspect might be enough to help. And there's also the fact that it's in a lot of people's watchlists, most likely. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    People are creatures of habit, so you have a point on the history thing. How much of one? I have no idea, but the watchlist point is a worthy and more... firm? consideration for sure. PacWalker 11:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    Although the picture is rather amusing, so it should be kept somewhere. :P PacWalker 03:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    Would it be named the goat pen if we repurposed it? PacWalker 03:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    Hmm, that'd be a nice name too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    Nope. The reason nobody pays attention to the Community Standards talk is because nobody makes efforts to advertise any proposed changes. (Hint: the Intercom and the Saloon Bar exist.) And the reason for that is that most of the people with institutional knowledge and/or attempting community building have left.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    It was advertised for plenty of time, no one just paid any attention to it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    Wait a minute, I think we need to hold an exorcism as ZooGuard is clearly possessed by the ghost of Nutty Roux, or perhaps he's just channelling? ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    That isn't possible; nobody leaves and ever comes back. : P PacWalker 11:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    Not to mention that it's not nearly vindictive enough to be a Nutty-post. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, it needs 3 insults to the RW community and a Parthian shot to be a Nutty post. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Antonio stella bottom tile 16:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    Parthian? The Mongols did it better. PacWalker 16:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    Did anyone aside from Nutty ever figure out how to send a site-wide (urgent) message? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 14:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    Special:Intercom appears to have a trail a mile long of the things. PacWalker 14:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    But all of the posts are from users with special privileges. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    He looks to have had staff and tech rights at the time, though, so... Never mind I'm just gonna shut up and think. PacWalker 15:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    Tech rights are necessary. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I did say "keep", but it's a conditional keep. I think we should be much more stricter regarding coop cases. It should be the community's last resource, when direct negotitation between the parties fails. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Never got enough hugs as a kid 16:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    But direct negotitation is rarely even attempted. Most coop cases I've seen lately just take the form of "someone did/said something mean to me" without even any pretence of trying to fix the (supposed) problem oneself before making it everybody else's problem. I do think the existence of the coop page actively encourages this attitude of talking (or complaining) about people rather than to them. If it wasn't there, editors with grievances would probably put a bit more effort into trying to sort stuff out themselves. Complaining to other editors would obviously still be an option, but they wouldn't be leaping straight to that option as often as they do now. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Farsight | Result: ?

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

[edit] Delete

  1. If this is a just an attempt to recreate a deleted article under a different name, I say delete. Spud (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. As this article's main author, I'd hoped to avoid snarking about Farsight personally, just about Farsight's theories and modes of argumentation. I also was careful to give lots of references to various posts by Farsight in various places. I even wanted to avoid stating speculations about Farsight's identity. How does this article compare to the earlier article on John Duffield? --Lpetrich (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    It's already been deleted. I suggest you lay out a solid case to restore it. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    The fact that its about John means that you can name it whatever you want, it's still already deleted. --Miekal 20:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    That assumes any article about Mr. Duffield should not exist; it's possible there's a case for an article. If lpetrich wants an article, he has to make that case. This also includes arguments about Mr. Duffield's frequent use of the word "libel". FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 21:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    My case:
    1. Farsight has shown up in numerous online forums and comment sections, presenting his theories of physics. However, these theories have numerous errors, and it would be helpful to collect explanations of these errors. The errors cover a wide range, from the nature of time to the natures of elementary particles. They include the likes of denial that elementary particles have non-rotation angular momentum and that the notion the Higgs mechanism is contrary to what Einstein said about mass and energy. The mission of RationalWiki includes "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement" and "Documenting the full range of crank ideas", so a debunking of Farsight's theories would fit right in.
    2. Farsight claims superior expertise in relativity, electrodynamics, particle physics, and the like. Furthermore, he supports his claims with quotes from heroes of science like Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Minkowski, and Feynman, and he claims that commonly-presented versions of their theories have errors from their departing from the originals. The idea that he is returning to what these heroes had taught is an idea that may unduly impress some people. Especially since some of these heroes are well-known as heroes. The article shows that these heroes often did not have the beliefs that Farsight attributes to them. It could be improved by clarifying that science does not proceed by its heroes issuing revelations, but is instead a collective enterprise.
    3. Farsight uses forms of argument that are typical of theology and similar fields, but that are rare in the physical sciences, even in physical pseudosciences. This alone is very distinctive.
    4. This article avoids speculating about Farsight's identity, and instead, works from what someone using the handle "Farsight" has posted in various places, complete with links to the original pages. The article contains a small fraction of the possible references that one could make to Farsight's online statements.
    5. This article avoids making snarky comments about Farsight himself, reserving them for his theories and methods. Or at least I had hoped. I also tried to keep its tone calm and sober.
    6. John Duffield has been known to threaten to sue people for libel for stating unflattering things about him. The article is about "Farsight" rather than about "John Duffield", and it is based on statements posted under the name "Farsight". So John Duffield will have to state under penalty of perjury that Farsight is him. Furthermore, he lives in the United Kingdom, a nation with a reputation for being a destination of libel tourism, though that has changed with the Defamation Act 2013. The United States, however, tends to be more strict about what qualifies as libel than the United Kingdom. I do not pretend to be an expert on libel law, but it is unlikely that anything that any of us have posted here on this issue would qualify as libel in most US jurisdictions. In fact, several US ones have anti-SLAPP laws, SLAPP being strategic lawsuit against public participation, using the legal system for harassment. — Unsigned, by: Lpetrich / talk / contribs 09:32, 20 April 2015‎
    Browsing through the deleted Farsight article, I can't see any reason that it shouldn't be restored. It attacks the scientific validity of Farsight's ideas and Farsight's semi-apologetic/quasi-religious style of argumentation. This is markedly different from the vaporised John Duffield article which targeted a named person, not an online pseudonym, and where the ridicule might far easier be construed as libel (using terms such as crank and cook etc.) - an especially iffy prospect given Duffield's threatening behaviour and that as a British resident he can avail himself of the ludicrously lax UK libel laws. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    I second the Wombat. --Castaigne (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 11:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. This article is about Farsight. Don't see any mention of Duffield here. Since on-mission and not about Duffield, I see no problem. --Castaigne (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    Farsight = Duffield FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 19:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    That might be so, but there isn't any information in the article that would confirm or tell me that. Or you that. And saying so would be, well, rampant speculation absent additions to the article. Picking up what I'm putting down? --Castaigne (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    I can go out of my way to name name, say, Hovind in an article about him, but the article is still about Hovind. Uust because we don't mention him by name doesn't change anything. --Miekal 14:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    Mr. Duffield said pretty much exactly what Miekal said. Mr. Duffield knows who the article is about; if we're worried about libel, this hasn't changed his view of the article. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  • This article's subject is John Duffield. John Duffield was deleted. This article may also merit deletion. If it does not, some distinction should be made between the original article and this article. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
So...you don't care if it gets deleted or not? BicyclewheelModerator 16:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd like an article on this subject. But since the last one failed so badly in votes, I don't even wanna bother voting. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 17:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support