RationalWiki:Articles for deletion

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
For the German political party known as AfD, see Alternative für Deutschland.

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 2017 archives and add {{PageToBeArchived}} in the right spot.

[edit] Alternative 3 | Result: ?

Alternative 3 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Delete

  1. Hopelessly tiny stub. DiamondDisc1(talk) 00:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Been a stub for three years.—127.0.0.1 (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Put it out of its misery. Spud (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Same as above. Christopher (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Merge/redirect

[edit] Goat

[edit] Acanthostega gunnari | Result: ?

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

[edit] Delete

[edit] Keep

  1. Unless a suitable page for merging can be suggested, I think this could be expanded instead using information from the external links. Bongolian (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Merge/redirect

  1. Merge with a suitable article.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 06:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    Surely you need to be suggesting one - David Gerard (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    List of transitional forms, perhaps? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 13:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Textbook case of "merge what can be kept and throw out the rest". Merge into List of transitional forms. We are not an encyclopedia. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Yes, that's the right thing to do. Spud (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Merge into List of transitional forms. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Same as everyone else. Christopher (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

Might fit nicely as an example organism in Transitional fossil. FYI, it's already listed in List of transitional forms. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Florentin Smarandache | Result: ?

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

[edit] Delete

  1. It's a hopelessly tiny stub and unclear. DiamondDisc1(talk) 05:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Unclear missionality. Very little to nothing is lost if it's deleted. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Merge/redirect

[edit] Goat

  1. I don't even know if this is even missional. But assuming it is, it seems to be a long enough article, though with little expansion potential. The worst part about this article is that is filled with jargon (e.g. "vixra", "in arxiv is GM", "a lateral thinker in a quite vertical series of publications" (wtf), "neutroscophy", "math is quite vertical" (again, wtf!?). Ironic that this article itself "confuses people with mathematical verbiage and a long list of nonsensical validity". I would support a rewrite of this mess more than a deletion though. This article may have some use per "case study" section, but as it stands, I think it only barely has a reason to be on this site. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. I don't understand the jargon either. I'm also rather concerned that the page is only in the Living people category and not in any others. That makes me wonder if its really missional. I'm really left wondering why I should care. It seems that the implication of the page is that Florentin Smarandache is a pseudo-mathematician. On the basis of the page, however, I can't see what real harm he could do or why anybody should pay any attention to him. Spud (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Osteopathic medicine | Result: Merge

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

[edit] Delete

[edit] Keep

  1. Osteopathic medicine (OM) is not the same as osteopathy (O). That would be the same as telling that alchemy is the same as chemistry or that alienism is the same as psychology (with the caveat that OM is still influenced by O in a way that doesn't apply to the other examples, and that OM contains a deal of crankery not present in those two). Additionally, one must notice that O and OM are practiced in different parts of the world; it's the O article that's going to have to be changed to reflect these facts (that, and it doesn't seem to have enough dept). Faunas (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    Perhaps the new article could represent this historical to modern trend, and explain both in depth? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 14:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    Too unwieldy. If that were to happen, I see two different things mixed up with one another. It would be better if we were to have two separate articles and one mention another. Faunas (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    Also, Faunas, you have not made a very good case within the Osteopathic medicine article for keeping it separate from Osteopathy. On the one hand you say that OM has ditched the pseudoscience of osteopathy, but on the other you cite a study that it's no different than placebo and quote Salzberg saying that it's pseudoscience ("'extra' training in pseudoscientific practices"). I believe though that that quote is out of context and it's not exactly what he says. Bongolian (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    I said that the thing that distinguishes osteopathic medicine from "regular" medicine and has in common with the old osteopathy, i.e. OMM, is pseudoscience, not the whole of osteopathic medicine, which aside from OMM is largely indistinguishible from "regular" medicine. — Unsigned, by: Faunas / talk / contribs
    Isn't the difference between the two whether or not the person is also an MD? Bongolian (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Merge/redirect

  1. Osteopathic medicine is synonymous with the existing page osteopathy. Osteopathic medicine should be merged into Osteopathy. Bongolian (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Clear-cut case for merging. Let's make this into ONE article and aim for Gold quality in its future. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Merge - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. We have Anthroposophy, and Anthroposophical medicine redirects to there. This appears to be a similar case, so let's be consistent. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. -DiamondDisc1(talk) 05:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. You convinced me. My arguments were getting more and more untennable. Faunas (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools