RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2015

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a list of old deletion discussions. Newest at the top.

Contents

[edit] April 2015

[edit] Wikipédia (português) | Result: Delete

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

[edit] Delete

  1. Appears upon translation, to be a hit piece of an ex wikipedia editor. Not helpful to mission as a result. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Not missional at all and doesn't even make an entertaining article. --Castaigne (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Even if the content was relevant to RW's mission, 4 quotes do not an article make. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. The article author is creating a series of pages with no content, just writing his point of view. --179.208.208.165 (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  5. The idea of one editor writing articles in a language that the vast majority of other users cannot read or write is extremely problematic and goes against the ethos of collaboration at the heart of the project. I would like to see every last one of his articles deleted if a vibrant cohort of Portuguese readers and writers does not start contributing in the very near term. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  6. ^ From what AH said. While it's nice to see RW branch out, almost every interaction ive seen between us and them is that "nobody can verify what you say and what we can verify is bad"--Miekal 03:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, well those interactions tend to be because I'm translating pages looking for problematic content. That's going to create a negative front. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 04:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  7. Doesn't claim that the Portuguese Wikipedia supports pseudoscience or anything dodgy. Is just some quotes which say that it isn't very good. Those quotes are being taken out of context if they're just from people moaning about their articles being deleted. I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I'm not happy that most of the Portuguese "articles" are just a few sentences, a YouTube video and some links to other wikis. And to my fellow sysops, I'd like to say this. The next time that somebody comes along and creates loads of articles in another language, don't just assume that editor is translating existing articles from English, tell him or her to "keep up the good work on those translations" and give that person admin rights within a matter of weeks. Take a look at what that editor is writing. It might be time to discuss our language policy at the bar. Spud (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    A Wikipédia em português possui problemas diferentes da Wikipédia em inglês. Por exemplo, existe um conflito entre usuários brasileiros e usuários portugueses. A Wikipédia em português é tolerante com charlatões por motivos culturais. Como a população dos dois países (Brasil e Portugal) é católica, com muitos espíritas e evangélicos no Brasil, muitos verbetes fazem propaganda da parapsicologia, entre outras besteiras. Como disse, o verbete precisa de melhoria e ampliação. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. A Wikipédia em português possui problemas graves. O verbete é uma crítica. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, but "serious problems" isn't rationalwiki's mission. For one, I'm still not sure the nature of those problems after reading your article, other than the kinds of things people have always said about wikipedias of all languages in quotes. Maybe you could help me understand how those problemas graves relate to pseudoscience, crankery, or authoritarianism? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, authoritarianism problems, but pseudoscience and crankery too. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    If the Portuguese Wikipédia has articles supportive of real-world authoritarian regimes and doctrines, that could be a missional take for the article, but if you're just complaining that the admins are too authoritive, I'm afraid you won't have much of a case. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Concordo que o verbete precisa de melhoria, de ampliação e que não atende a missão do RationalWiki de combater ideias absurdas e a negação da ciência. Só para citar um exemplo, existem administradores que fazem uso político da Wikipédia em português. Quanto a negação da ciência, a Wikipédia em português é tolerante com muitas religiões e seitas. Na verdade, uma característica da cultura brasileira. No Brasil tudo é permitido e tolerado. Existem muitos exemplos de verbetes absurdos e mentirosos na Wikipédia. Estou respondendo para esclarecer que a Wikipédia em português não é confiável. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    O.K. Por enquanto eu vou fundir com o verbete Wiki (português), mas eu penso em criar outro alinhado com a missão do RationalWiki. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Needs improvement, expansion & preferably input from other editors, but seems to fall within stuff we cover. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    How? Really, how? It looks like exactly the sort of things people always say about the English wikipedia, but just 2 quotes, and no hint of relevance. I don't know what you're seeing that I'm not. Please help. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    (Follow up) I tried digging in as much as I could into the 2 citations, and they really don't distinguish themselves from the English Language "WHY DID YOU DELETE MY PAGE ABOUT MY WEBSITE?" complaints that you see everywhere. I could easily believe a smaller wikipedia has an admin cabal mercilessly pushing an agenda, because the English wikimedia staff is hands off about other language pedias(let the local culture decide what suits them etc.), but that's not the case being made. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

I am deleting the article in 24 hours unless the vote swings considerably. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

O.K. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Observação: Eu vou planejar a criação de um verbete totalmente novo e que respeite a missão do RationalWiki. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You may not get the chance, if this ever pans out somewhere.--Miekal 04:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Rome Viharo | Result: Kept, by 9 votes to 2

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

Subject thinks article is libelous; claims lack of notability; insists it should be deleted but won't start this himself. PacWalker 01:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

Not worth having an article on a forum warrior with a blog - may as well create articles about that guy in year 7 who bullied me. Tielec01 (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Retracted my vote - it seems that Rome's star has ascended since I last looked into this, Castaigne is right I should have google searched him again before voting. My bad. Tielec01 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. Delete - What problem does it solve having an article written about me on Rational Wiki? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Somebody not using their account shouldn't be able to vote in these discussions- period. — Unsigned, by: MadmanJohnson / talk / contribs
    Please do not strike through my comments - I was directly invited to participate here. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    In fairness, you are an unregistered editor who showed up solely to take part in one AfD and associated snippiness. I wouldn't strike it myself, but he's not exactly miles off the reservation here. PacWalker 06:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Generally speaking, the "solution" offered by our articles is the provision of information relevant to our mission, but whether or not your case is notable enough to merit such a "solution" is an interesting question. PacWalker 03:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Are they really a nobody whose life we're affecting? Maybe. That possibility makes my skin crawl. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    That's a huge bunch of nope. A quick Google shows that the subject in question is not a nobody and is all over the internet and media landscape. --Castaigne (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Hmm. Yeah, okay. Having an IMDB listing is more than enough to undermine my concern about being a nobody. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    If I am 'all over the media landscape' as you put it, can you please check the evidence in that landscape and see if it matches the voice of this article? If I am all over the place, I can assure you it has nothing to do with parapsychology or many of the topics you all love to hate on. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Aside from a couple highly interesting film credits that is... Either way, complaining about SPOV? Too bad. This isn't nice promowiki. PacWalker 05:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Or maybe you're saying we should cover (possibly instead) the main body of your work (as you define it, of course)? Again, we aren't that other wiki: we have a pretty specific mission and focus. PacWalker 05:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Some marginal guy on the internet said something silly. Nobody got hurt as a result. Said guy will go the fuck away and stop bothering us if we take the article down. So take it down. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Now I'm thinking I want it deleted again. This is a tough call. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    I think that this would set a very bad example and risk encouraging every living crank mentioned on RW to try and "complain their RW entries away". That's why the constant whining actually moves me closer to a keep vote. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Go back and read my comment properly. Let your eyes linger on the phrase "nobody got hurt as a result." Anti-vaxxers hurt people. People who want children to learn mythology instead of science hurt people. People who sell apricot pits in lieu of chemotherapy hurt people. People who want to start a theocracy hurt people. I do not think any of those people should be allowed to complain their articles away, as those articles contribute, in a small way to the public good. Other articles we have, maybe this one, may be more akin to the culture of public shaming that I am starting to think about more and more after reading Jon Ronson's new book. I stand by my vote. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Who "gets hurt" by our other cranks, such as, say (other) electric universe numptys? Should we start removing their entries too? What about Time Cube? And how do we know that no one "got hurt" by trusting Viharo's BS over actual science? I still think this kind of "no harm, no foul"-argument is weak and opens a royal road to start removing all kinds of woo-related stuff from RW as long as it isn't "obviously harmful" (beyond giving people a nonsensical view of the world, of course). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    EC. I respect your argument. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Let's say this article is "public shaming". Would it be possible to remove the public shaming and keep the article? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    I have absolutely nothing to do with EU people - they asked me to present my website, and I did. I haven't promoted anyone's ideas. I don't think it's fair to cite editorial arguments on Wikipedia, which were done anonymously, as 'promoting' pseudoscience. Wikipedia has it's own rules regarding what determines 'pseudoscience' - that's what I was arguing for, Wikipedia's own rules. This is a witch hunt. Thank you aginghippie, yes this article is a result of public shaming, essentially for at best what were anonymous discussions where privacy was also expected. Disagree with me, fine - shame me when you disagree with me? disgusting and irresponsible 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
"I haven't promoted anyone's ideas"...wrong [1], wrong [2]. Leuders (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Not wrong. The link you share to TED are comments on a BLOG about Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk getting taken down from TED and I was defending his right to to give it, I was not promoting his ideas nor was I saying that Morphic Resonance is true. There were hundreds of comments left on that blog. Commenting on blogs is not promotion, it's commenting. Seriously - you're shaming people for comments on blogs now? Secondly, ISHAR is not me promoting someone else's idea, ISHAR was *my idea* for a collaborative library that Deepak Chopra funded. It's an academic library of published peer reviewed literature. It's educational, not promotional and was meant to cover hundreds if not thousands of topics. You're believing your own weasel words and it's intellectually dishonest. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh sure, publicly rebutting the opinions of TEDs scientific advisors and quoting Sheldrake somehow isn't promoting Sheldrake's ideas. A long term effort to attempt to prevent Sheldrake's theories from being called pseudoscience on Wikipedia isn't promoting Sheldrake's ideas. Giving interviews to Huffington Post saying you created ISHAR in response to "misleading information on the internet, especially information promoted by skeptic activist organizations" and positioning a collection of fringe pseudoscience papers that support Chopra's batshit ideas as an "academic library of peer reviewed literature" isn't promoting Chopra's ideas. Really? No wonder folks like Craig Weiler, Alex Tsakiris, and the Electric Universe people have rolled out the red carpet for you. Leuders (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Correct on the first question. Almost correct on the second question - the argument on Wikipedia was an editorial one regarding Wikipedia's conflicting policies over a BLP. It wasnt a scientific or philosophical discussion about Rupert's ideas and I was only there for 6 weeks. Correct on the third question, I designed architecture because it is very very true that skeptic activists publish misleading information on the internet. But the architecture is not 'anti skeptic'. Look, see for yourself. I know that from direct experience, that's why I got the gig. ISHAR was an academic library. It only publishes an archive of peer reviewed literature, none of it is Deepak's work and the majority of it is downloaded from PubMed and JSTOR. So you believe I should be publicly shamed because Alex, Deepak and Craig publicly endorse, fund, or report on my work? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I believe you should have a RationalWiki article to document (among other things) your highly public work as cheerleader of the "we're victims of evil skeptics" fringe science crowd. Whether you are shamed by it or not is up to you. Leuders (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I took a cruise through ISHAR and found it exclusively contained papers on ‪Biological‬ and ‪Ayurvedic medicine‬: you know, bloodletting, cow shit, arsenic, lead, and mercury presented as effective remedies for illness. So I take it part of your job was to publicly spin this stuff as "peer reviewed academic research" to make it sound more legitimate. Shameless. Leuders (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a version of the article about me 'without' the public shaming that Laird submitted last year for anyone to draw from. You can disagree with me without shaming me and effecting my personal and private life. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I also just re-edited the article with context, then reverted - so you can see the version I edited here. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. Article is informative, and on-mission; no material is libelous, although "bullshit master" might be a little bit too positive. His actions are notable, and as PacWalker has noted; not required for this projectQwed117 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. On mission. Not libelous. I believe the subject to be trolling hard. --Castaigne (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Article is on-mission and not libelous; notability is (a) greater than subject alleges and (b) not required here. PacWalker 01:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC) We document "the full range of crank ideas," and "memetic and language technology that resolves all conflict and war" is such an idea. PacWalker 04:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    So too is the notion that "ideas, memes, media and words replicate. Exponentially." See Bekenstein bound[wp] at the other wiki. PacWalker
    Seriously? One sentence found on a website that no longer exists, where I incorrectly added 'exponentially' is reason to justify a public shaming? That ideas 'replicate' themselves is something Dawkins writes about in his book, and where I draw my source. That I misappropriate the word 'exponential' and no longer publish that seems like you're doing everything you can to cherry pick evidence to fit your position, not very intellectually honest. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. Very much on mission and not libelous. Public activism in support of Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopras pseudoscientific woo (he was in charge of Chopra's Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository for Chrissakes) is well documented, as is his tireless promotion of his bizarre OS-12-Aiki-Wiki Thing he says will end all conflict and war. Subject's periodic trolling and socking on RW are an annoyance, but that's not a good enough reason to delete. Leuders (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    I find this 'guilt by association' disturbing. My work with ISHAR had NOTHING to do with me promoting ideas, I designed architecture for a collaborative library, which is independent of any content that it contains. See for yourself. Any associations I have with any individual or organization in those communities is about my work with Wikipedia. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  5. His connection with ISHAR and promotion of the idea that there is some kind of skeptic conspiracy to ruin alternative medicine on the internet [3] are reason enough to keep the article. On a side note, I'd advise against engaging with him. He's a notorious internet troll, with a long history of intentionally bullshitting, and is more than happy to talk in circles as you pull your hair out. Marlow (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    I am not a 'notorious internet troll', yet this term is so loosely thrown around, it's just assumed it's true.104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  6. Unlike John Duffield (the recent precedent for claimed libel), this person appears to have more than mere internet-forum posting and more non-forum citations for us to add. This person is involved with three areas that intersect with RW:MISSION: his GSoW and internet skeptics conspiracy theory, his association with Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra's pseudoscience, and his largely unsupported claims about OS 1 2 3 (et. al.) which may fall into futurist woo or pseudoscience. Ultimately, the subject is missional and notable, and the article does not appear to have libel. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    It's pretty disingenuous to say that an evidenced based report detailing abuses happening on Wikipedia with specific editors who themselves CLAIM they are skeptics is a conspiracy theory. My work with Wikipedia is about editorial abuses. My work with Deepak Chopra was regarding Wikipedia. That skeptics have been targeted in my report has nothing to do with their belief systems, it has to do with their behaviors - and I've made that very clear on the site. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    What evidence bases your assertion that skeptics on Wikipedia are conspiring to attack a person? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  7. Hahahaha no. --Madman (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
  8. Nice try, but no. It's informative, on-mission and not libelous. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg THAT IS STILL LEGAL TENDER. I AM SANDWICH LAWYER. 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    RE: ISHAR, Deepak Chopra: I also see plenty of editors here using my association with Deepak Chopra and ISHAR as evidence that I deserve to be shamed on Rational Wiki. I've disclosed my history with Deepak Chopra transparently. I've developed a collaborative digital library which ANY organization could use. Even Rational Wiki could use the aiki atheneum. I'm a problem solver. I like solving online problems. I'm obviously very passionate about online collective editing. Perhaps I was naive as to the pushback I would receive, but hey, I live in Southern California - we tend not to be so reactive to people when they do yoga and meditate. I've created media plans for Jennifer Aniston, that doesn't mean I endorse her films personally. I've developed media plans for Brazil, that does not mean I endorse their politics. Additionally, I've developed technology for brands and publishers to use to promote or advertise content. That doesn't mean I endorse their content, it means i create a manner of facilitating it. If I endorse something, I blog about it. Deepak Chopra is a very famous and well connected person. He also hired me to apply my work. I worked with him because he contacted me and paid me. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Then perhaps you should be a bit more careful in choosing your clients... Chopra may be "a very famous and well connected person", but so are numerous other woo meisters and helping them either spread their woo or whitewash their online presence to make them look better is not going to gain you any points, whether you do it for money or pro bono. Doing purely for the dough just makes you look unprincipled and mercenary (in my eyes, at least). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    I don't 'do it for the doe' like you put, you make it sound like I am selling out my principles, not yours. I LOVE designing collaborative architecture and I was thrilled to have the work. How dare you think you have the right to frame me, my world view, my beliefs because of a client that I had at one time? I don't have to apologize to anyone for having Deepak Chopra as a paying client - it's you who should be ashamed for publicly shaming people who had a professional engagement with someone you disagree with. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    And removing the completely unnecessary layer of personal judgement, that really shouldn't be part of this discussion, our mission is to contest those materials regardless of why they are published. So if you put out a book or movie making psuedoscientific claims, our mission is to alert people to that fact. We can't see in the heads of those who do it, and frankly it doesn't matter, much like motivation for a crime doesn't excuse it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Good point, otherwise various other woo, denialist, or conspiracy projects could just as well be excused as being "only mercenary" which is clearly bunk. Spreading woo for the moneyz, rather than from sincere belief doesn't give you the proverbial "get out of jail free"-card. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    By that logic, Wikipedia is spreading 'woo' as well because they have articles on alternative medicine and new age topics? Google is promoting woo because DeepakChopra.com shows up in search? While I can't say I endorse Deepak Chopra, do I have to be resentful of him and his ideas like you are and heed your warning that if I don't you have a right to shame me for it? I'm sorry to say, that sounds pretty draconian. Why, it even sounds like a conspiracy theory. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  9. Keep. Anybody who winges like this gets a vote from the goat to keep. If you need another reason then meh, whatever, looks good enough to keep.--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 23:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    It's clear the reasons for keeping the article on Rational Wiki are based about personal evaluations and opinions about my professional life - which none of you could have a hope to claim you know about. I've updated my essay to reflect the current status of this discussion. I can't say I am disappointed, I am honestly not surprised .104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  10. Okay, I'll pitch my vote on the scales too. Considering that Leuders has rummaged around ISHAR and found plenty of pseudomedical stuff á la Ayurvedic "medicine" and Viharo proudly acknowledges his role in creating and promoting ISHAR, it would appear that he can't even pass AgingHippie's "no harm, no foul"-criterion. Sure, Viharo may not have come up with the woo himself, but being the PR guy for woo peddlers who promote pseudomedicine is enough to merit an article here, just like RW has articles and categories for shysters, enablers, experts for hire, and propagandists such as Edward Bernays, Frank Luntz or Karl Rove (though sadly not, yet, on Saint Ronnie's chief of propaganda, Lee Atwater[wp]).ScepticWombat (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

These funny things are, like, not votes for or against deletion. Rather, they're, like, comments, dude.
  • I'm starting to think he's not so well-known in more general circles as I had once thought. Still don't know whether this article merits deletion, but I'm taking myself off the vote counts for now. PacWalker 02:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Relevant to Rational Wiki, there is no reason I should be on anyone's radar here unless you were a Wikipedia editor. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I will say that that isn't strictly true: I had heard of you before joining here, and Wikipedia had nothing to do with it. PacWalker 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Then you only could have heard of me because of what exactly??? A ridiculous discussion I had on JREF 8 years ago? an essay I wrote on 'internet dialectics' 10 years ago?? Seriously where or why would you ever hear about me? What 'pseudo scientific' claims do I make? what products do I sell? What health claims do I publish? Have I written a book about ghosts? Surely you dont follow me on twitter or tumblr, and if you did, what content do I post that needs to be red flagged?? You don't know me, and there is no reason you should know me unless your involved with media, adtech, Wikipedia, or follow me on social media. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I heard of you by word of mouth in relation to what was then called AL 0 1 2. PacWalker 04:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Then you're mistaken about the time frame. AL 012 was the name for aiki wiki only after WWHP was published and I quickly changed it. If you mean OS 012, then you could have only have heard about it on JREF or perhaps two or three discussion forums in 2003 - 2007, or AOL message boards. Seriously - this is what you want to warn the world about? If you want to criticize aiki wiki - why not either wait until it comes out, or criticize what's on aiki.wiki right now? Perhaps raise an 'intellectual' issue you have the with scope of the project? If you're intention is to criticize OS 012/Bubblefish, it's like criticizing Sasha Baron Cohen for fraud and impersonation, citing direct video as evidence. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
As I've said, I heard of it by word of mouth; I don't know where my friend'd heard of you from, but claiming that I could only know of you if I visited forums x, y, and Bob is just a plain lie. PacWalker 04:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It's the ONLY way you could have heard of me was from those forums, either you were there or your friend was. There is no other source of OS 012 elsewhere on the web. It was isolated to a few forums, and to this day can't believe people either still remember it or even care two shits about it. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Not true, Viharo. I had heard of it myself, here in the programming world - and I've never been a member of or even glanced at JREF. Secondly, you forget something: once you put it on the internet - and you did - the internet remembers it forver. --Castaigne (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit in two minds about this one. The subject seems to be just another internet troll, but that in itself is not enough to merit an article here. But neither do I think RW should just knuckle under whenever a crank decides that RW is being "sooooo, like unfair, really, it's just terrible, I tell you". Otherwise we might take down every page. Precedent seems to be a bit wobbly, e.g. the edit history of Jarah White and Talk:John Duffield. Currently, I'm leaning towards keep, but not enough to weigh in with a vote yet. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    One thing that I do think argues for a keep is the level of crank magnetism documented by the article (really, Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra and electric universe woo and a conspiracy of teh evilz Wiki-skeptucs?[wp]) ScepticWombat (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Why... crackers... wut? PacWalker 07:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Just because... And I happen to like TUC (crackers or trade unionists, take your pick). It's morning and I've had neither coffee nor breakfast yet - perhaps that's what brought the association - shit, I don't know, I'm not a shrink. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Castaigne: You've heard of OS 012 in the programming world? Wow. Well it was an underground meme before there were internet memes, so I guess that's kinda cool in a way. But so what does that prove? @Skeptic Wombat: I freely volunteered to help Rupert Sheldrake on Wikipedia because researching collaborative communities is part of my work and I had the opportunity to work in a wiki war. I would have done that in almost any subject matter. Deepak Chopra however *hired* me to help him with his Wikipedia war and my role to ISHAR was architecting their Wikipedia solution and digital library. I've had allot of groups reach out to me because of my work with WWHP. I council them on online harassment on platforms. It has nothing to do with their belief systems or yours. The fact that I would somehow be redflagged as someone who has worked with Rupert or Deepak is part of the problematic psychology that I believe corrupts this forum, it's 'guilt by association' mob psychology here - NOT evidenced based facts like the site claims. @everyone here: you throw the word 'troll' around when someone presents you with a challenging position, and in this case, stands up to online harassment. I'm sorry - that's not trolling.

104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Rome" (obviously not your real name), your posting is filled with gross misspellings, "I don't get it" type of statements, and a general link that shows nothing. I've managed to read your rants and found a childish insistence on last wordism, so it's obvious to me you're not here to think and learn. You also refuse to accept that Obama refuses to salute the flag and that including the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance reduces autism. Nobody seriously doubts that those who want bilingual education can get it from public school, and unfortunately suffer because of it. I can tell you, though, that you'd be happier, more productive, and more insightful if you accepted the possibility of the truth of long-held views that you currently reject out of hand. --aschlafly 11:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
lol - 104.175.42.84 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Solution??

What does this process hope to resolve? Their are arguments for 'Keep'. Those arguments are not arguments, they are the equivalence of comments on a forum. This is not a process of online deliberation. There is nothing in this process that determines if the 'Keep' votes are even honest about their views or can support those views consistently inside of critical questioning. Stop pretending this is any sort of reasonable process of debate and conclusion. It's obvious this article was written by those with a personal grudge against. Are the keep votes claiming that Rational Wiki just spontaneously created an article about forum posts I made 10 years because of their relevancy in 2014 instead of related directly to Wikipedia, which the evidence clearly shows in the evidence of the diffs on both forums happened at the exact same time??. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're complaining about the fact that we vote on deletions, you are in the wrong damn place. While you are welcome to debate the issue as you will, declaring someone's vote illogical (how references to our standards and mission in a debate on whether to have an article on you here is illogical is beyond me) does not render it invalid. PacWalker 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Your argument under delete isn't an argument either. It's a question, but we still count your vote, yes? 131.204.254.105 (talk)
I never said it was illogical, I'm suggesting it's not rational. Im not seeing anyone here be transparent about how they came to their conclusions and what compelling evidence they have for their vote. If everyone votes to keep the article, that does not take away the harassing nature of it's origin or make any conclusions about any facts I raise. I'm raising ethical issues around human dignity and the responsibility of an influential online publisher to address them. Some Rational Wiki poster just deciding I'm a troll 'just cuz' and using that to empower and publish an article because it's just what they feel like is not a rational deliberation and having a vote does not spontaneously make it such. Online rational consensus building is an area of very specific expertise I have. By claiming to be a rational wiki that seeks to publish evidence based factual content, you've set the high standard for yourself. Don't be upset when someone calls you out on it. Counting votes is not peer review, evidenced based review or any evidence at all in any way shape or form that the winner of the vote is rational. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Fine. Here is some evidence in regards to what we aim to do here. Our standards, and legal standards, are what standards we judge our articles on, not your twisted ethical sense that claims that describing your past activities critically is some affront to human dignity. PacWalker 03:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I get what your trying to do here. Was it really important that Rational Wiki fulfill it's mission by telling the world you think I had some crazy ideas I talked about 10 years ago anonymously on some forum no one gives a shit about? Again, what pseudo scientific claims do I make? What crank ideas do you think I have? That I've been promoting the idea of a collaborative online platform for consensus building? Can you explain to me what is so cranky about that idea? That I published a case study of editorial abuses happening on Wikipedia? Because those are the only claims I make publicly and stake my reputation on. Remove the 'troll' claims people pass around about me, which there is also no evidence of, just a few forum comments - and there is nothing to write about. This article reads like a personal vendetta because that is what it is. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT ROME VIHARO except for the editors on Wikipedia and JREF forum. In the meantime, this article is effecting a real live flesh and blood person you know nothing about. Yes I met with investors, especially plenty this year. I also am talking to foundations about grants for aiki.wiki. The only problem this article solves is harassing and embarrassing me - that's it. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It presumably also presents people who consider believing some of your nonsensical claims (look! my language/"consensus" building framework will end wars! All of them!!1!!1one!) a skeptical view of those claims, which is what we aim to do. If analyzing the claims you've made previously harms you, that is because you promote nonsense. PacWalker 04:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

THEN REVIEW MY published claims and do not confuse a creative performance on a discussion forum with the later! As aiki wiki is not yet released, and wont be for at least a year, there isn't much you can truthfully say about what the platform does, but you can draw upon claims I make on the site http://aiki.wiki, or on the site I talk about Google Consciousness talking about social media evolving to replace government as we know it today. Do that and our problem is solved. Remove 'known internet troll' and 'promoter of pseudo science rupert sheldrake' those are both false and misleading- publish my video narration on what aiki wiki is aiming to do, and attack that.

PLEASE! I would so much rather you appreciate attacking me for things I am seriously claiming rather than misinterpret creative experiments on discussion forums and use that to frame what I do. I've spent years building aiki wiki, costing me considerable amounts of my own time and money. If you want to brow beat me on that project, do it. WITH EVIDENCE. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You've suggested some lovely additions, and I'll see what can be done about it, but we're not going to stop criticizing your past work because you suddenly declared it "creative." PacWalker 05:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not avoiding criticizing - if you're going to criticize me, at least criticize my actual claims and the context of those claims. Don't say I'm a known internet troll because I am not a known internet troll - and if you use tactics like that to contextualize work I am doing at a professional level, it's unethical and intellectually dishonest to your own principles. Dont accuse me of spreading conspiracy theories about skeptics, it's also intellectually dishonest and twisting context deceptively. If you just want to embarass me and write a rant about me and what you think my ideas are, then do so on a blog. If rational wiki is what it claims - then it will look at what facts it has, what reasoned arguments it has to keep them, and present accordingly. If you and I disagree about the possibilities of online consensus building and the best way to do it, then i don't need to be a troll or promoter of pseudoscience for you and I to disagree. be respectful and honest, that is all I ask. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I am rarely respectful and occasionally honest. I further have no interest in your conceptions of ethics, but I will do what I can to ensure that your article deals also in your recent claims and their context and not merely their older underpinnings. PacWalker 06:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] PROTEST, calling bullshit

Are you really taking a creative and theatrical work that is NO LONGER PUBLISHED ONLINE and hasn't been for about 10 years as the excuse to keep an article WARNING THE WORLD about something that does no longer even exists on the web? Seriously - you're worried people are scrolling through internet archive to find out about 'Bubblefish, flame warrior' posts and articles? Stop being intellectually dishonest, you're cherry picking any excuse you can find to justify to yourself this is not harassment. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you consider the fact that you based AikiWiki on these principles presently irrelevant? (yes, I have seen your ugly six-petaled "flower") PacWalker 04:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's relevant to this discussion if you're going to attack those principles with reasoned argument. I think it's relevant if you want to claim that the rules of gamification for aiki wiki are making claims that are crankish or based on something pseudoscientific. Are they? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
[obvious response omitted] PacWalker 10:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I asked you a direct question Pacwalker. You're avoiding the answer. You're avoiding the answer because you know I will request transparency in your calculations, and we both know it's lacking. I called bullshit, and you're not making a good case for yourself or your community. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Neither of us knows that; the transparency requested is pretty damn evident, in fact. As to "a good case" ...maybe (I doubt it) not to your strange mind, but nobody else here seems put out by all these flaws you allege with the reasoning for keeping your article. I'm not saying you're delusional; just that everyone but you must be. PacWalker 07:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Since I am the subject of this article, I think it's fair for me to ask what evidence do you have, what reasoning do you have, what methods have you used to arrive at your conclusions. You're not giving me a straight answer - noted.104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] This discussion has gotten too heated, and it's not just the BoN's fault

Please try to restrain your hostility, and at least appreciate the feelings of the article subject. That doesn't have to sway your vote, but do incorporate it into how you treat them. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

^. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Being accused of being unable to count to two (which is not past four, so I'm safe) may have snipped about seven metres off my fuse. PacWalker 16:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair point, but still, I'm asking nicely. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Is your sig subtly mocking me... because if so that is clever. And I shall try to tone the whatever down. PacWalker 16:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No, my sig is just assuming that I have my usual overly harsh tone I regret using 5 minutes later. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I meant the strikethrough... Is that random? PacWalker 06:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought it looked cool as if it were underlined. I didn't think of it looking like actual strike to other browsers. I'll fix it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Ohh. All right. Well dang, I thought you were just being rather cleverly sarcastic with the signature. PacWalker 06:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Can we close this?

It's 6 to 2. Do we need more consensus? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This AfD has not even been up for 24 hours yet. Not everybody's life revolves around RW, and some substantial contributors may only check in occasionally. Can it stay up a week before dumping it to the archive? Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure! αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Besides, it's not like we can't move on with the rest of everything (Mr. Viharo's article included) while this is up. PacWalker 01:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Tru. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 01:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] The ethical reason for deletion

I've been skeptical about participating in this process because I've already have been through it once or twice before and do not believe this process actually resolves anything and believe it's a sham. But hey, I'm also upset, so maybe I'm wrong? Maybe someone here can prove me wrong. If I'm proven wrong, I'll even state it in my essay here and retract assertions I've made about this community.

The article here on Rational Wiki was written at the exact time I was editing with the intention to be anonymous Rupert Sheldrake's wikipedia article. I was mentioned as one of a number of other editors on Ruperts article here back in September/October of 2013, what linked us all together was that we believed Rupert Sheldrake should have the title of biologist in his lead sentence. I was editing biographical facts and context for the article. The editors on Wikipedia, many of them whom describe themselves as skeptics, frequent the skepticism noticeboards, and even use this site did not want me there. One member recognized me from a discussion 8 years ago on JREF, and began a campaign to have been sanctioned on Wikipedia as a troll. After 5 attempts, and only using the actual link to the JREF forum and a website from 2004 on internet archive, were successful in banning me from Wikipedia. Simultaneously this page was created about me here. I was framed as a woo, pseudoscience, sheldrake parapsychology supporter who was trolling. Even now, by coming here, using the process rational wiki itself invites me to use, a few users are accusing me of trolling Rational Wiki. I don't believe challenging Rational Wiki's principles as a publisher is trolling.

This article was written as a form of harassment. It's clear from a number of commenters here that they do not like me. It's personal. One user even retracted his 'delete' because he somehow believes my 'star power' is rising. What I am doing to warn the world about? This article infers I am a bullshit artist who promotes psuedoscience and trolls the internet. That's not who I am. If anyone here were to know me, they would also know my integrity is something very important to me.

I believe a vote to 'keep' this article proves my point - and a vote to 'delete' this article proves me wrong. From the perspective of ethical publishing - this article should be deleted because a;) it does not accurately offer a true narrative of events, ideas, or personas in the article, b:) It's used to work out personal grudges, dislikes and is comprised of personal commentary c;) it's not ethical to harass people with opinions on a website that credits evidenced based facts.104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Voting to keep your essay proves that it should be deleted? Troll PacWalker 04:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe votes to keep this essay prove this community does not uphold it's own principles and abuses this platform to harass and demean other people. I believe a vote to delete this article proves that I am mistaken about this community and it's principles.104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] How does Rational Wiki determine a 'crank' idea?

One of our principles is to write about crank ideas and cranks. See RationalWiki:Mission. A vote to delete your article is a deviation from that principle, not adherence to it. PacWalker 04:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought that up. How does this platform identify 'crank' ideas? Can you define what a crank idea is with brevity, and then explain specifically which ideas of mine are 'crank' ideas? Thanks in advance. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I mean it seems to me that 'crank' can be used like a pejorative, meaning it could be used to demean someone. However, since Rational Wiki claims to be an evidenced based website, I'm sure you have a way of measuring, determining the demarkation line of what defines them? Do you have a link to this on Rational Wiki? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
RW:Not a dictionary might be a redlink, but we still aren't a dictionary. PacWalker 04:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
We do have a )dys(lexicon however, though it is poorly maintained and filled with things that never get said anymore. --Miekal 04:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It actually has surprisingly many entries that are applicable to this mess... PacWalker 04:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh I'm not asking for a definition of 'crank' is as a word - that's just a proscription for a word, I am asking you if Rational Wiki has a process to identify cranks ideas. For example, a pseudoscientific idea has clear demarkations that define it, one of them being the lack of falsifiability. While pseudo science could be used as a pejorative, it has clear boundaries that can be set to logic and argumentation. I'm not seeing anything like that here on Rational WIki, so it looks like anyone could in principle label any idea they didn't like, for whatever reason, as a crank idea. That's fine if this is an opinion based website, but it does seem to counter the fact that it's also an evidence based website.104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The general consensus on "Pseudoscience" and "crank" here is "Something that runs counter to currently established scientific fact, often with little testable proof" and "Person who promotes said ideas"--Miekal 05:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(wording is a bit different but...) "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! PacWalker 05:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
So 'crank' and 'pseudoscience' are interchangeable words? Do they share the same demarcation? 'Pseudoscience' is not a subjective term, yet 'crank' seems like a term anyone can just throw around here, like troll, and not have to take any responsibility for it's truth value, yet it still seems to hold a high bar as if it's somehow based on scientific consensus. Isn't that misleading readers online? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is not an ambiguous term, and you have quite unambiguously promoted pseudoscientific theories and originated some of your own. As such, you qualify as what we call a crank. PacWalker TL;DR: No.
Exactly, pseudeoscience is not an ambiguous term - yet your interchanging it with crank,which means anything you want. What 'pseudoscientific' theory have I originated? What 'pseudoscientific' ideas of others have I been promoting? I want EVIDENCE, sir - not your vague opinions. I should expect evidence on an evidence based website. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Originated:OS 012 and its spawn. See my keep vote for a pair of the conflicts with fact. Promoted: Chopra shit, Sheldrake's conspiracy theories, etc. etc. woof woof. PacWalker 03:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
You're not performing very well in the discussion, or in the presentation of your evidence. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not a pre-Nürnberg war crimes trial; superior !orders are not a defense here. PacWalker 06:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm starting to get a clearer picture of the community culture here. Let me guess, you're like 17 years old? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Wrong and irrelevant. Good job. New addition to OS 012: -1, for your words. PacWalker 06:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It was a snark, yes - and irrelevant, however even you contextualizing this very discussion and my argument/defense as the 'superior orders' argument informs me how 'rational' this process of 'evidenced based and reasoned discussion' works on Rational Wiki. fyi that would just be assigned a 2/snark, even by myself. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] I edited the page and reverted. Here is the context of what you're writing about as reference

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Rome_Viharo&oldid=1452503 104.175.42.84 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting to adding off-mission self-promotional material. Why I don't block you is beyond me. PacWalker 02:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Now you're really not following this argument. This entire article about me is off mission - it's just a public shaming and harassment. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The RW community, not you will interpret RW'a mission. PacWalker 06:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
You're starting to sound like a bizarre internet cult, seriously. I take RW's mission at face value. I also evaluate the behaviors here, and the reactions to requests for evidenced based reasoned argumentation. You, and each and everyone of you here also interpret's RW mission. As individuals, not as a community.
Today's discussions and disclosures by this community I believe clearly show a pattern of online harassment and continual lack of responsibility and integrity. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Or that someone has a raging persecution complex...
Note that no one so far has bought your hand wringing and excuses. The only ones beside yourself to have voted for a delete (Tielec, who has withdrawn that vote, and AgingHippie) did so because they thought you were too small fry for RW (and later AH suggested that it would at least shut up your whining), not because they found any merit in your constant claims of harassment or libel. Let me be blunt: You don't have a right not to be offended. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
That the Rational Wiki community is not phased is surely not a surprise. I didn't come here to get a vote on deleting my article, I already went through that process last year, it was a sham - and other members of this community noted the same. Additionally, Aging hippy said he didn't feel it was right to 'publicly shame someone for a comment left on a discussion forum. If you all are fine with this behavior - it's you're community do what you want. I do have the right however to criticize this and confront each and every one of you. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] About Rome Viharo

Rome Viharo is a social media strategist, CEO of an ad technology company, former recording artist, viral marketer, digital filmmaker, and blogger. He was called an Internet troll a few times in 2007 on a discussion forums. He also left comments on the TED blog known protesting TED for removing the a talk given by Rupert Sheldrake and edited biographical information on his Wikipedia page. Viharo is a member of the TED community having given a TEDx talk in 2011 called 'Google Consciousness'.

His website claims to tell his version of events regarding editing Wikipedia and references skeptic editors on Wikipedia skeptic noticeboards. In addition to criticizing Wikipedia's policy for site abuse, he also claims to design collaborative platforms and consults individuals with Wikipedia problems. One of his clients was Deepak Chopra. ISHAR was designed based on Viharo's principles of collaborative curation.

12 years ago, Viharo claims he was experimenting with a new creative medium on discussion forums called OS 012. To promote OS 012, He developed an online persona called 'Bubblefish: Flame Warrior', which a few people did not like and argued with him about it.

Viharo has a history of creative writing, viral marketing and comedic mediums, using humor and set ups as part of particular brand of creative writing. In 2001, he created the persona 'The Fifi Bastard', a fake music producer from France, to promote his EMI recording of the same name. Years later, he further experimented with 'The Fifi Bastard' in blogs and various forums.

Additionally, he created a fake 'Morgan Freeman' cigarette commercial, and 'Barack Obama in college' with comedian Freddy Lockhart.

Viharo promotes ideas on 'futurism and media' on his blog and promotes the development of his project aiki wiki.

In 2011, he gave a TEDx talk Google Consciousness, which tells the story about the creation of the meme google consciousness, and uses the talk to promote his concepts of social media evolving to replace government. Claiming in the talk to 'not know what he is talking about' when it comes to consciousness, he explored how 'Google search' describes two competing models of consciousness and the possibility that a search algorithm could actually be sentient based on what they are saying, while clarifying this is not what he personally believes.

[edit] UNICE Global Brain Project | Result: Deleted

UNICE Global Brain Project (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Delete

  1. This looks like spam to me. It also looks to me like this could be the tip of the iceberg of a whole lot of spam if it's not nipped in the bud now. Spud (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. While collaboration is laudable (and nice) this article is not consonant with the core of the RW mission. Bud. Nip. Now. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Goat

Can I get some on-wiki info about this planned RW functionality? I'm not really sure why it's on-mission, though if it is a proposal, it may go elsewhere. PacWalker 12:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep Forever

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. The heck it's spam. (I wrote it and my intentions are pure, I promise). UNICE is a non-profit, collaborative project that will add another layer of Reason to RationalWiki. Why not make it a project, or put it in a special category as PacWalker seems to suggest? Let's see what happens. This is the home for something like this. If it works, it will help all of us address a multitude of issues related to just about everything.

I ran for governor of Florida in 2010 as a Democrat. I was told by party honchos that issues don't matter, it was all about the money, and if I didn't have million of dollars to spend they didn't want to pay for a primary because they had already anointed Alex Sink. I quit the party in disgust and ran as a NPA because issues do matter, which is large part of the reason that RationalWiki was founded. (Speaking of founding, read the founding article at www.UNICE.info if you have any doubts.) UNICE is about the issues and a way to discuss them rationally. Michael E. Arth

I AM NOT suggesting putting it in a special category; I am saying to make a proposal for whatever collaboration somewhere other than an essentially self-promotional mainspace article. PacWalker 15:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted

Spam. Learn to recognize it as such and delete it. No vote necessary. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I was a bit cautious just in case there was any truth behind the vague suggestion that the Rational Media Foundation had already given support to this project. (Deep down, I knew that wasn't the case.) The next time I see such obvious spam, I will boldly delete it without messing about. Spud (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Romney | Result: Deceased

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

[edit] Delete

  1. reeks of 2012 recentism, doesn't really strike me as relevant anymore, the way gay rights continue to be a la santorum ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. I agree. Unlike santorum, this one apparently didn't really catch on (or maybe it's just that I've never heard of it...). ScepticWombat (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Pointless - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. I never heard of it at the time, and I was heavily engaged in 2012 election drama. Kill it. --Castaigne (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  5. Burn baby burn! --Madman (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
  6. Flash in the pan[wp] politics cruft, not worth keeping. Not opposed to merging— see goat below. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Was already deleted; and the deleter ignored the merge suggestion. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Must have been looking at a cached rev then. Harm nor foul not found. Regarding merge, IDGAF. Lack of opposition is only tepid support. Mitt_Romney#Mitt_the_dog_lover? is just fine without mentioning a failed attempted neologism. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. I think the animal abuse makes it notable enough. Fuck man, that must've been one hella scared dog. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Scott Ludlam | Result: Keep

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

[edit] Delete

  1. Fanpage of a politician without any apparent mission relevance. ZooGuard (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. Seems like the guy is on point about things and a well-written article (the current version is a poorly-put-together piece of shit) would be missional. It would do a lot to move RW away from its US-centricity to have articles onthe Dennis Kuciniches of the rest of the Anglophone world. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Dude's fight against stupidity is actually pretty good and I think missional - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Ey Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Dare I say it? It could do with being a bit more neutral. He's not the Messiah. But I think he can stay on our pages. Spud (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

While the article appears to be on mission, to me it reads like a rather sycophantic fanboy page (and the "SRSLY!"-stunt in the photo makes Ludlam look more like a pupil passing around notes during class than a serious politician). Could use a do-over by someone who's familiar with politics down under but not in awe about everything this guy does. Currently, the article reads like some of the more dewy eyed depictions of the Green Party in the UK. My more cynical side is sorely tempted to ask: If they (or Ludlam) are so fantastic, how come they've had so little success in getting people to vote for them? ScepticWombat (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If your (somewhat mainstream) political boogeyman of choice is so bad, why do people vote for them? PacWalker 04:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

4 for keep, 1 for kill. Archive time? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Comedy Central

Comedy Central (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Delete

  1. It's a TV channel, some of whose shows we happen to have articles on. What of it? It's like having an article on, say, Fourth Estate because they publish Ben Goldacre. BicyclewheelModerator 20:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. ^--Miekal 20:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Nothing this short and irrelevant should survive. Ithaca8 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. Sure there are articles on other networks and such, but this one is barely more than a fork page. Either it needs to be expanded into something that actually describes the relevancy of CC for RW's mission, or it might as well go. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  5. Comparing the size of the navigation template with the actual content...--ZooGuard (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  6. Could pretty much be replaced by a category. Worm (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  7. It doesn't need its own category. It certainly doesn't need its own page if that page is nothing but one huge template and four sodding links. Spud (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  8. Kill it. --Castaigne (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. Relevant to mission. CC often attacks pseudoscience, fundamentalism, etc. Their shows are the media that make up part 4 of RW's mission. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 21:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    We have articles on the individual shows which do what you say. is there a need for an article on the TV station that runs the shows? Compare for example, Fox News - it's obviously on-mission but its carrier isn't. BicyclewheelModerator 21:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    "Often" is a bit of a stretch, tater. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    @BW: It's useful as a hub linking to the CC shows. A Fox News carrier article would be relevant if said carrier also hosted other crazy stuff.
    @ik: "Often" means "relatively more than most pop culture". A low bar, but CC passes it. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    Why do we need a Hub article for them? --Miekal 21:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    Makes it easier to navigate to the shows; potentially, could have coverage of shows without their own main article. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    because The Daily Show, Colbert Report and South Park are so difficult to navigate too. --Miekal 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    They aren't. Nobody said otherwise. The article provides a central list of CC's shows, letting people who didn't know about said shows know their relation to each other. And, again, shows w/o main article. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. It used to redirect to South Park, but I thought that wasn't appropriately useful anymore now that we have three relevant articles. Zero (talk - contributions) 23:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  • But but but, politically progressive satirical news shows with low tolerance for bullshit. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Shrug.gif We have articles on the BBC and CBC, and that's not counting all the news networks we have articles about. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Unless the CC page is expanded into something like the BBC or CBC (i.e. containing actual information) I'd say it's pointless. If someone can be bothered write a "profile" à la the ones on the other news and media networks who have articles on RW, I'd happily strike my kill vote. I'm not against a CC article on principle, I just think that the current one isn't even a stub and must either grow or die. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If we have several articles on CC shows, turn it into a disambiguation page. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 00:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
    ^ This.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
How is that different from what it currently is? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
it would have a small template instead of one dwarfing the content (if we can even call it content). BicyclewheelModerator 00:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's 8 to 2. Can someone kill the article? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 04:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Jack the Ripper | Result: keeper

Jack the Ripper (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Delete

  1. I don't understand the article as written at all (seems incoherent) and question the applicability to RationalWiki. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

#Really. The only justification would be as an illustration of memes growing and living on. Scream!! (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Go on then - don't see it myself but ... Scream!! (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean, there's some bullshit pseudoscientists announcing they've "solved the crime" about once every 2-5 years, but I don't think that alone merits an article(and as it stands it doesn't address that). Also: incoherent and stuff per CosmikDebris. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Eh, it's improved on the incoherence front, and the arguments in keep aren't bad. More neutral now. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. Clean it up. Relevant to pseudohistory, possibly pseudoscience. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Per FuzzyCatPotato. Highly relevant to pseudohistory and conspiracy theories. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Give it a chance to be revised to something more missional (not to mention better written). The subject itself is highly relevant as the tuber and the Ruritanian dictator have already pointed out: Loads of conspiracy theories and pseudohistory surrounds this one. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Another tuber gives his support to keeping the page. Yes, the original version of this page was utter crap but it's well on the way to being fixed. As the subject of plenty of conspiracy theories, Jack is definitely on-mission. Spud (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Now support keeping, per the utter crap linked down under goat. PacWalker 07:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

Moved Presumably on letter of mission, as there are psuedogenii "solving" the murders not too infrequently; people obviously don't don't seem to presently agree beyond that as to whether it fits the spirit of the mission. Not the best writing, but that objection should just raise a sofixit in my opinion. PacWalker 03:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC) (this vote is in fact open to all users, right?) Edited (strikethrough and following) 04:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, you can vote on deletion! But be warned, "Goat" doesn't count for anything; it's a comments section. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I know; I have some uncertainties about whether this article fits the spirit of the RW mission (i.e. is this the sort of crankery we mean to document? Total RW newb (me) does not know...), but I'll leave that to others to sort out, and just put my thoughts here instead of cleanly in keep. PacWalker 03:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
My argument for the article's missional relevance rests, as mentioned earlier, on the number of pseudohistorical conspiracy theories surrounding the Ripper murders. If the Ripper murders had simply been an unsolved mystery, I'd vote for a delete, but since the "explanations" for them includes blaming anything from the British monarchy[wp] over Lewis Carroll[wp] and Winston Churchill's dad to a vast high society conspiracy[wp] involving (who else?) the Illuminati, I think that highlighting these aspects would definitely make a Ripper article RW territory. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Moving to keep due to sheer facepalm value of some of these: if this ain't first-rate conspiracy nonsense, I don't know what is. PacWalker 07:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

2 to 5. Kill the AFD? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 21:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say give it another 24 hours. If not pitchfork & torch mob shows up, archive this thread. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Archived. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Disagreeing by deleting | Result: it's a joke, kids. also: moved

Disagreeing by deleting (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

THIS WAS A JOKE. BLAME PACWALKER

[edit] Delete

  1. No sane person could believe that this article is correct; as such, we should rid ourselves of it. PacWalker 03:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Sucker count: now up to five seven over 9000.
    fffffffssssssssssssss. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 16:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC) sneaky bastard
    Definitely not expressing my disagreement with disagreeing by deleting by trying to delete it or anything... ;) PacWalker 16:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    To clarify: this was an (apparently overly) elaborate joke. PacWalker 03:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. While guilty of said crime myself, I do not see any missionality to this article. Cast it into the void. --Madman (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
    You get bonus points for falling for it hook, line, sinker, and fisherman. PacWalker 03:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. I think it has a place, as it can be seen as a sort of logical fallacy. Zero (talk - contributions) 04:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. It's a form of censorship, so of course it should stay, but perhaps with a different title. BicyclewheelModerator 10:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Either rename it to Internet censorship or just merge into Censorship. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 15:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. Keep or merge. Censorship on Internet forums, maybe? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
merging into Censorship looks like a good idea. BicyclewheelModerator 19:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The article isn't *incorrect*, it's definitely a thing that happens and keeping everyone alert to it is good. If you must merge, Burning the Evidence would be a better destination. MatsFan (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  • This is very much a thing - but this is not the title for this. --Miekal 04:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that the tile is... not intuitive. "Censorship" may not be the right word though.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Argument By/through/other Censorship?" The point is it's "I'm correct because nobody else disagrees (because i removed all dissent)".--Miekal 18:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Farman Nawaz | Result: Took a long walk off a short pier

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

[edit] Delete

  1. Unattributed copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Farman_Nawaz with at absolute best minimal relevance to our mission. RW is not the place to just dump your rejected Wikipedia article. PacWalker 07:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. What PW said. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 13:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. I couldn't agree more. Don't copy your rejected Wikipedia articles with their broken templates, red links and red categories over here. Spud (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Goat

Is already deleted. Archived. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


[edit] March 2015

[edit] Vagina woo | Result: Keep

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

[edit] Delete

  1. This isn't woo. I'd expect a vagina woo page to detail whacky claims about vaginas' mysterious powers. Like, for example, crystals take on healing powers if inserted into one. This page just details a popular misconception. I think that content would only belong on a page just called "vagina". And that page has already been deleted, along with "penis". Spud (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. +1. The only woo listed is just a link to actual woo, the steaming page. Trick (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. And move the one factoid there to a more appropriate home. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    Move to vagina. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. These misconceptions are astonishingly common in the manosphere. Keep article because this bullshit is being spouted. Move it if you hate the title. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    There's no "these" there. There is one basic claim, with a few variants. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Needs moar, but is not a bad idea or a bad start. Vaginal steaming should be summarised here too - David Gerard (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Meh. Looked it over again, has potential for debunking. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. There's plenty more that could be talked about here; IIRC a couple weeks ago a politician thought you could get a pill into the vagina through the gastrointestinal system, for instance. - Smerdis of Tlön, If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned. 19:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  1. We should rename the site to something along the lines of "Popular misconceptions about genitals" and add nonsense people believe about penises, too.--Arisboch (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. I have heard of these misconceptions in rl a lot.(Both the one about women having lots of sex, and the pregnancy one.) I think that if we keep the article, we could merge the G spot article into this one.Make haste slowly (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, it looks like this is a keeper. I can't see any woo on the page, so I'm going to rename it "Vagina myths". Spud (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Training with Hinako | Result: Deleted

Training with Hinako (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Delete

  1. Mission Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. ^ Arrr. Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 20:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. I don't even...--Madman (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman
  5. ^Make haste slowly (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. BoN's claim of the article being on-mission (that it tackles exercise woo) is practically absent from the article and who watches anime/hentai for exercise tips anyway? No, the argument for relevance is extremely weak and the content even weaker - kill it. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  7. I can see absolutely no redeeming value for mission-tackling reasons. Exercise woo might include crossfit or some claims made for yoga, but this isn't that ballpark, and no amount of documenting the bad science in this bad anime is going to make it relevant. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. Legitimately relevant to mission (see talk page of article for reasons why) — Unsigned, by: 193.71.107.217 / talk / contribs

[edit] Goat

Give it at least 24 hours; if it's not missional by then, the axe swings. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Perpetual Motion As Its Own Science | Result: Deleted

Perpetual Motion As Its Own Science (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Delete

  1. it's a load of rubbish Scream!! (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. It's a rather on the craptastic side: somewhat skeptical but lacking in science. Anything worth salvaging could be integrated into the existing perpetual motion article. Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Gong.MatsFan (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. The writing style looks eerily similar to Nathan Coppedge's perpetual motion site linked in the article Hertzy (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. That was one hell of a really boring intro, and the article seems to support perpetual motion. I say we nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.Make haste slowly (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Goat

[edit] Ronald Levinsohn | Result: Deleted

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

[edit] Delete

  1. Obscure Brazilian financial crises not missional; article barely readable Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Thought about deleting this myself for identical reasons yesterday. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. The element of political corruption in the case is the only thing that is missional, and even so it isn't enough. BicyclewheelModerator 20:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. The hell is this? --Madman (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman
  5. That makes 5 for delete, in 2 hours. KILL KILL KILL FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. meow.Super Dude,Where's my car? 21:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  7. Yes, delete. It's basically a copy of the WP entry as it now stands. Bongolian (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, but I've never learned how to to the post-delete paperwork under the fance new-ish delete system. If someone can post a link on my talk page to the instructions I can't find, I'd be grateful. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Goat

[edit] Hans Eysenck | Result: Keep

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

[edit] Delete

  1. One sentence stub about somebody who wrote an anti-Freud book. So bloody what? Spud (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    Badly-formatted, tangential to a mission-related topic, currently mostly an irrelevant bibliography and the creator is on notice for some potentially questionable edits elsewhere. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. An article could be written on his racialism. This isn't that. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Kill it. --Castaigne (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Shoot to thrill kill--Arisboch (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. Its more than one sentence now. He wrote about the paranormal, something that rationalwiki might consider connected to science or pseudoscience and rationalism. Freud is the subject of an article. Having an article on Eysenck gives the other side. --PBustion87 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Once you finish barfing at the formatting, the content is actually missional. It's relevant to psychology, racialism, and paranormal. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. His book on the paranormal makes him missional. BicyclewheelModerator 20:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Seems on-mission Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. If the focus is at least as much on Eysenck's research into parapsychology and astrology as on his criticism of Freud(ianism) (seriously, who hasn't jumped on that bandwagon?), I'd say the article is definitely on mission. Keep and see what happens. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  1. It's been much improved since the AfD was opened, but it's still rather slight. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, but seriously, it's been only 25 hours since its creation and since it may still develop into something (a bit more) on mission, I think the extermination crew should give it a rest. Really, how many of RW's current articles would have survived if final evaluation had taken place within the first day or two of their initial creation? ScepticWombat (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Removed my "delete" vote. The page is improved, though it would be good to know if this guy influenced more prominent paranormal chasers or "scientific racists". If he did, that would elevate his importance, IMO.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Age of consent | Result: ?

Age of consent (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Delete

  1. "Off mission" -- reason given by User:PBustion87 on page, but posted here by User:FuzzyCatPotato to make the AFD work oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. Seems pretty on-mission to me. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. I'm not particularly in love with this article but there's no reason to delete it. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Make it three. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  1. Meh. Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. A great opener for New Order's best album. BicyclewheelModerator 20:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Doing this to make the AFD happen, not actually supporting delete. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Then why not just let someone else who wants the article gone make the deletion so we at least know the proposed reason. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
... Reasons. I totally have them. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't do that, FCP. We don't need to "make AFD happen" if there's nothing for it to do. --Castaigne (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The guy in delete added the AFD template, but probably didn't understand how to add the AFD here. Just fixing that. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Stop wasting everybody's time, Fuzzy. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Everyone's acting like fixing someone's unfinished AFD is some terrible thing. It's not. Get over it. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
If you're not a moron you'll have noticed that PBustion87's deletion nomination on this article was just a retaliation for his/her own puberty article being deleted. Do you really think picking up other people's frivolous AFD cases that they can't be bothered to follow through themselves is a worthwhile exercise? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Weaseloid has the very correct point on this one. Let's just go ahead and archive this nonsense. --Castaigne (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It's archived.
Sorry, Weaseloid, I didn't notice, because I wasn't following PBustion87's every action. Maybe you could say this next time, minus the insults? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 23:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Or you could go back through the Recent Changes and do some investigative history. ;) --Castaigne (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Generally my thought process doesn't go, "Huh, this person failed to do something perfectly, I better look into their probably insidious motives." oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Mine do, especially a newbie editor on RW or WP - or at least I check for possible malice, just in case. if there is none, fine, and they get a nice welcome template. BicyclewheelModerator 18:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation of government | Result: Deleted

Conservation of government (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Delete

  1. Can't verify this through any academic sources or anything. Nor is it a commonly presented notion in the blogosphere. If someone ever references this idea, ever, it'll likely be because it's on rationalwiki, and it lacks serious sociological or other academic backing. It kinda actually makes us look like the left-wing shills we're often claimed to be Ikanreed (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Merge anything useful into an article on privatization. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Looked through this article. It has dubious statements. some verging on loaded language (e.g. "The public mind is not often enough drawn to the idea that a corporation is a government, reaching for power like any other."; "[...]offensive nature of unjust enrichment, which may otherwise be cloaked in Tea Party terms such as 'opportunity' and 'de-regulation'") Since it's not a common notion in the blogosphere, this might become problematic when people use this term when its origins is in RationalWiki. Also, it's not very funny. LEFTYGREENMARIO 20:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Goat

[edit] February 2015

[edit] Olavo de Carvalho (portugês) | Result: deleted at creator request

Olavo de Carvalho (portugês) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Delete

  1. Reason LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    Currently a 0-word stub Not currently a 0-word stub. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 02:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Creator request, evidently created in error - David Gerard (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Goat

[edit] Conservative bias | Result: Keep

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Needs expanding, and linking with Conservative correctness. BicyclewheelModerator 18:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Counterpart to Liberal bias, should be expanded to show how liberals sometimes discredit a source as being "conservative" in the same way that some conservatives discredit a source as being "liberal". oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Could be better, but it seems on-mission to me Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Keep. Expand if possible. --Castaigne (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. It might be good if the proposer elaborated on why the article is "not needed" because I don't see anything wrong, and having "liberal bias" without "conservative bias" feels like a coverage hole. LEFTYGREENMARIO 20:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. Not needed BankBox (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  • "Fox News is of course completely biased right-wing arse on a stick" needs to go back in the article. BicyclewheelModerator 18:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Brown | Result: Keep

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

[edit] Keep

  1. A quote-mining, special-pleading writer on a national newspaper is definitely on-mission. BicyclewheelModerator 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Needs expansion to better document his activities. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. ^ What Bicycle Wheel & FuzzyCatPotato said Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Missional, keep - David Gerard (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Keep, but only if it can be expanded. --Castaigne (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. Not relevant to our mission BankBox (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Con artist | Result: Redirected

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Arguments about missionality don't quite ring true to me. Historical con artistry frequently involved both pseudoscience and crankery. There's no reason that specific people are crucial to the on-mission component. In fact, I'd say they're secondary at best. A quiet stub isn't a problem. Ikanreed (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. I would rename the page to con artistry or better yet, confidence game and keep it. A compendium of some of the classic scams and how they're updated for the times, together with a discussion of the psychology involved, strikes me as something fairly obviously missional. This is true even if we can't have a list of con artists any more. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Oh yeah, a move would be crucial. The activity is far more relevant than the people, per my previous argument. Ikanreed (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. I think it's missional. A title change would probably be good though - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. I'll support a historical history of con artists. Confidence game seems appropriate. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. I would keep and populate with examples of convicted con artists such as Bernie Madoff, Ponzi, Billie Sol Estes, etc. Hclodge (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Many astrologers", "psychics", and woo-peddlers are con artists (not all, though, some are simply delusional). Indeed, probably a large percentage of woo exists simply because some con artist wanted to make a buck somewhere... So it seems on-mission to me. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. This article no longer lists named examples and is a useless stub. Nutty states it should not be expanded with named examples. There is no point in keeping a stub that has non-missionality. Castaigne (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Although I think it is on-mission, it's also a libel-attractor, particularly with the less-than-neutral sounding title of "con artist". MarmotHead (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Is just a dictionary definition of a phrase everyone already knows. Looks like CorruptUser added some more content. Still pretty short and not really a necessary article to have, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Just redirect to Category:Scams or delete. Anyone who doesn't know what a con artist is, can just use a dictionary. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. I merged with Charlatan. Feel free to delete! CorruptUser (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  1. I vote we restore all the people that were removed from the page, for content purposes, but replace all the actual names with Nutty, for libel purposes. Trick (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'm pleased to know that Trent and the RMF getting sued is funny to you. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    And I'm just as glad that it's a topic that we can resolve in a caustic and overall irresolute manner. Trick (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Can we not do this, Trick? I don't think it's helping. Ikanreed (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Since the missionality paradox involved here is one not of my authority to resolve, I am ambivalent. --Madman (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
  3. I'm not sure why we can't just open the example section with a note saying not to add any living persons and then fill it with dead con artists.--TiaC (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Possibility of defamation suits from living descendents. Although you might want to check with Nutty to make sure. --Castaigne (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    I am not and never have been the RMF's lawyer. Don't check with me. Try making a good decision on your own. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    You don't really want me to do that. My "good decision" will always be "Whatever is the most certain course."...and certainty is best established by permanent deletion. --Castaigne (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Merge it with Charlatans? CorruptUser (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Ok, I prepared it a bit more, and I think it can be added to Charlatans. Anyone know when the results of the vote are? Also, thanks Ikan, added your link. CorruptUser (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    Just merge it. The consensus is that this article as is isn't useful but that people want historical examples, which "Chartalans" can provide quite well. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Yes! Merge with Charlatan. Spud (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. A great source popped up quite recently: How Scams Worked In The 1800s Ikanreed (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Headbangers | Result: No need for discussion, deleted.

Category:Headbangers (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Keep

  1. You're all just headbangophobes paid for by big pop labels to suppress our freedom to bang our heads. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. Empty and unlikely to be used Ikanreed (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Sure. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. I find myself unsurprised by the creator. - David Gerard (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. GO. HUNT. KILL EMPTIES. --Castaigne (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

Unused categories can just be deleted. I don't see any point in AFDing them. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

oh. Ikanreed (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Prem Rawat | Result: Severely trimmed the page

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Okay, I made some light improvements on the article. Tone's not quite so off, and citing some missionworthy concerns(Though I don't know about this source I used: [4]). I'm skeptical about that's site's claims that the wikipedia page is whitewashed. It could just be a belligerent ex-follower. It's really hard to say. Ikanreed (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    I agree it's a good page to have as such; but right now (even after your improvements) it's very difficult to judge what's true here. There are some bold claims about slavery and scamming, but doesn't really cite any references or bring arguments (I would *not* consider the ex-premie & prem-rawat-critique.org to be very good references here)... For all I know, this page could just be a bunch of misinformation... Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, I've got no firsthand knowledge, which makes me uncertain about everything. "Nuke and remake later" is always an option, I suppose. Ikanreed (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    Interestingly that domain is registered through domainsbyproxy, which hides identifying information of the actual register. Certainly there could be legitimate reasons for this, but when it comes to a hit-piece of a site, I'm thinking it's probably the opposite of reliable. Probably should yank it as a ref. Ikanreed (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    Excellent improvements to the article. My only motivation for putting it here was the way that attempts to put truthful information onto wikipaedia were quashed by cult members, so the article there reads as if it's a fairly benign cult. It would be good to have a warning here for anybody investigating it, but I quite understand, particularly as I've not got time or energy to rewrite the whole thing, if it's deleted. It'd be a minor public service, I think, to keep it, but I agree on all the points about quality and references. Fustbariclation (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. REWRITE REWRITE REWRITE oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Keep. Entirely missional. Rewrite useful - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. Not just incoherent and difficult to follow, large parts don't quite match what I read on WP for example (doesn't mean it's not true, of course, but no references cited here). Perhaps worst of all, almost all of the article is copied ad-vebatim from ex-premie.org (article links to the pages, so you can check yourself) Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    KILL KILL KILL (or wipe it and rewrite) oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Ditto. Spud (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Agree with all of the above. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Agree. Attempted to be funny rather than telling something that is likely to be correct. Contractor (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  1. Seems like the subject would be on mission, but it's way too badly written and sourced to keep as is. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Seems like a perfect candidate for an RW article, but needs someone knowledgeable about the subject with basic writing skills. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. I did some rewriting, but I lack confidence in the quality of my reference materials because I've never heard of these guys until today. Ikanreed (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps we could reduce (ie. rewrite) it to a basic stub, which probably won't be too informative, but at least won't be wrong, either... Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] 2014 Longitude Prize | Result: Deleted

2014 Longitude Prize (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. Relevant? BankBox (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. ^ oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Not relevant to RW at all. BicyclewheelModerator 18:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. The history of the longitude price is interesting, but I don't see how it's relevant to RW's mission Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Tom Ruffles | Result: Merged

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

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. His only claim to fame on RationalWiki is that he's positively reviewed a few pseudoscientific authors. If we had an article on everyone who fit that label, we'd have a couple million more boring stubby articles. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Cut the article and merge any relevant bits into Society for Psychical Research and/or Craig Weiler as per Carpetsmoker's Goat comment. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  1. Much of the content was not even required. I don't see why "conspiracy theory" is being misused and thrown like trash as those theories are about pseudoscience, woo, and some real events. Better to merge. Contractor (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Identity politics | Result: SNOW keep

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Let it snow, let it snow, let it Snow. BicyclewheelModerator 23:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. This can't be serious. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 08:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. What the hell?--TiaC (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Yeah, I'm pretty sure BONs shouldn't even be adding deletion nominations, particularly not on their third edit - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. Article is conspiracy-woo with heavy homophobic overtones. Also doesn't know what "tokenism" means. This guy is a clown. 71.190.194.2 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Not actually a list of magic tricks | Result: Deleted

Not actually a list of magic tricks (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. A strange relic of the Exiled Encyclopedist era that never became an actual list of magic tricks or anything else useful or meaningful. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, it's not really on-mission, and rather silly as well. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Some of the text at the top looks like it could fit into an article about magic (illusion)[wp], but what we have here is neither a proper article nor a proper list. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. An article on "Magic (illusion)" wouldn't be on mission for us. Allowing this article to continue to exist was an attempt to be nice to someone who was already whining about being persecuted. Fat lot of good it did us. Spud (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. lolnope - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. There's no reason for us to have a page on tricks of the stage entertainment trade, is there? Individual tricks might be missional, such as cold reading, but if so they can have their own articles. BicyclewheelModerator 22:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] List of minor cranks | Result: Deleted

List of minor cranks (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Keep

Damn, that was quick. I actually thought there was some promise to the idea. There are so many whackadoos out there. The big ones stick in your memory, but a compilation of all the little fringe also-rans would be a handy reference. Maybe not "cranks" though. It gets the point across, but we can just do more quoting of their words if the intention is to be pejorative. How about "stars"? They aren't too bright, there are a lot of them...MatsFan (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown. --Castaigne (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with documenting obscure bits of crankery, although a shift in emphasis from the person to the idea would work best. Plus cites. Lots of cites. BicyclewheelModerator 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. Bunch of nobodies who may not like character assassination Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. Calling people cranks is probably something we shouldn't be doing. - Grant (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    Well, no. We shouldn't be doing it unjustifiably based on personal opinions in a hodgepodge list with iffy inclusion criteria. But cranks exist and substantiated accusations of crankery can be sourced. Caution is the watchword. And this article isn't it. Ikanreed (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    Directly calling someone a crank is still not a good idea. Highlighting how their ideas are cranky is a different story. - Grant (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    You cannot separate a person from their ideas; they are one and the same. But the issue is moot now. --Castaigne (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    From a legal perspective the two are indeed quite different, at least when it comes to what we say about someone vs. what we say about their ideas. - Grant (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    You can and must separate them. But that separation doesn't mean there exist exactly zero cases where a person can be called a crank, just that extreme judiciousness and highly qualified, properly attributed third party support for the claim is necessary. We're in a BLP cleanup right now. Ikanreed (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    I find it hard to imagine a source that could be considered appropriate support for calling someone a colloquial, catch-all term like "crank." - Grant (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    Do not must at me. And yes, if they are separate, then there does exist exactly zero cases where a person can be called a crank. If Gene Ray is separate from his ideas, then he is not a crank; it is his Time Cube ideas which are a crank. He is thus perfectly not-a-crank since he is not his ideas. See? --Castaigne (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    No, the "must" is there because of our BLP push, and it's well-reasoned due to the legal issues the RMF has had recently. Like it or not, defamation is something we do need to be concerned about. - Grant (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    Then if that is a fear, we should engage in mass deletions of living persons in order to protect ourselves. After all, in the USA anything may be litigated as a defamation. --Castaigne (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    Right, so perhaps ensuring we're not actually defaming people is a good idea. - Grant (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    Then I recommend that we remove the sentence that "Gene Ray is anti-Semitic, homophobic, racist, and batshit crazy." All of those could be considered defamatory by him, and therefore actionable. I assume that the RMF would be unable to sustain the costs of proving otherwise in a court of law.
    "Can be litigated", and "justifiable" are two distinct concepts. Cutting the latter decreases risk, cutting the former is paranoia. Ikanreed (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    As much as I haven't been agreeing with Ikanreed that much lately, this is one case in which I am. Of course, catch-all terms like "crank" and "quack" can be quite difficult to reasonably justify. - Grant (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I really don't see the difference between the two concepts you are referring to. Either it can be litigated or it cannot; if we're going to fortress up, then it should be done right and proper. But that's not for me to decide; I'm just a peon, not a boss. --Castaigne (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    Well, the thing is that understanding why things are helps, no matter who you are. Baring contrary evidence, you're trusted to make the right choices, but you need to be fully informed first. So why the distinction exists: Can you imagine someone going "Hey these people are saying things about me online that are driving my customers away, and it's not true!" Forget the purely legal aspect for a moment. If they can believe for themselves, that the things we're saying about them personally, are untrue, they're far more likely to sue. So if we stick to stating objectively true things about people and criticizing the ideas they have, it mitigates that chance. Ikanreed (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree with that entirely. It doesn't matter if objectively true statements about the Kent Hovinds or Paul Elams of the world are made; they're going to sue your ass anyway because you disagree with them. The Roca Labs case is a perfect example. This is how the woo world operates. --Castaigne (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
    Actually, Hovind sued on the basis of us listing precisely which crime he was accused of incorrectly. Ikanreed (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    And eventually he will sue you on the basis of listing it correctly. Because Hovind. That's just how a Hovind do. (Not that it really matters. I've already blanked out the page. My page. Not Hovind's page.) --Castaigne (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    Hypothetically, yes he could, but this concern is strictly pragmatic. This is the new standard and the reason for it. Just think on those reasons in the future. Nuance and judgement calls are still going to happen. Ikanreed (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    Then my pragmatic response is simply to be safe rather than sorry. Printing nothing that could be used, period, is more certain (which is the most important thing) than trying to guess whether people will agree with a "nuance" or not. --Castaigne (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Yeah, no. Proper article for any who deserve it (or add to to do), but not this - David Gerard (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    That's just it; none of these people deserve their own article. No article should exist on a single person unless you can get at least 5 good long paragraphs out of it. --Castaigne (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. For reasons outline above. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. There's no reason to include, for example, everyone's crazy aunt who swears by homeopathy, only the people with any real influence. So, to the circular filing cabinet.CorruptUser (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  1. I cast greater minor crank, and do 2d3 points of Intelligence damage(assuming I can make a successful touch attack). Ikanreed (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Very well. Go ahead and delete, I guess. --Castaigne (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Rage Against the Machine | Result: delete

Rage Against the Machine (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Keep

  1. Someone has to be the non-conformist around here. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. Fancruft & quotecruft. No analysis, article content or substantial connection to site missions. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Concur Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. KILL KILL KILL oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
    Didn't you write most of it? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
    I felt bad for it. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. I don't see anything mission-worthy here, and doubt it could be mission-worthy at some point in the future Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. I can see potential for an article, but this definitely isn't it. Delete without prejudice - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. We should avoid raging. Contractor (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  7. This page has always made me cringe. I'll be glad to see it go. Spud (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  8. Band says left-wing things. While it's a refreshing change from YOLO bling crap, I don't see why it justifies an article particularly. Unless we do articles on other similarly-inclined acts from The Weavers to MIA. BicyclewheelModerator 22:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Dubstep | Result: Speedily vaporized

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

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. Not missional at all John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. What they said. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Life Giving Moments | Result: redirected to push poll

Life Giving Moments (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. Off-mission stub. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. I couldn't agree more. Spud (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  • Merge and redirect to Push poll , it's a great example for there - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    Dammit David, why do you always have to have good ideas. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'll go along with that, although I would have liked to see the uncanny valley stuff given more prominence. Thanks, all. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] January 2015

[edit] John Pack Lambert | Result: Deleted

John Pack Lambert (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. Article subject has raise concerns bout accuracy of main points of the article, and the citations do not bear them out directly Ikanreed (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. All of the above reasons, plus the article is on some guy whose claim to fame is EDITING WIKIPEDIA, fer Christ's sake. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Agree with both the above. Assuming, for the purpose of argument only, that everything in the article is true and could be supported - what, exactly, has this guy done to deserve a personal attack? ProblemChimp (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Appears not to be true. Wack it. --Castaigne (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. I too have an opinion! Trick (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  7. (EC)Seems like a Wiki grudge. He seems to have issues with women that got the notice of a NY Times blogger (also some odd "anti-white" comments mixed in), attempts to whitewash LDS stuff on Wikipedia, and is OCD about catagories...but hasn't done much of anything of any note. Certainly doesn't seem islamaphobic. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    I think I'm ready to call it doomed. 7 deletes and no keeps. Ikanreed (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Caiden Cowger | Result: Deleted

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

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. Wombat covered me below. Trick (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. With only limited, carefully decided exceptions, minors should not be featured on rationalwiki. They don't need youtube videos they posted when they were 15 following them their whole life. Forget libel laws, we have our own ethical standards to consider here. Ikanreed (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Some pimply-faced kid said something stupid on the internet? Stop the presses! Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. I strongly agree with Ikanreed's reasoning here. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. ^--Miekal 17:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Bomb - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  1. Trick's arguments on the talkpage suggest it should be put to a vote at least: "I feel like this is a pretty useless article, overall. The first (out of 2) references is no longer valid, and it really just boils down to "hey look here's an ignorant kid on youtube"". Personally, I don't feel strongly either way. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Newsmonster.co.uk | Result: Deleted

Newsmonster.co.uk (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. This website seems to no longer exist. Were they ever of any importance? Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Can't even find any links to it online, looks dead and forgotten. The replacement site is owned by the same guy, Danny Penman, who may or may not rate an article - it's certainly still heavy on the woo - David Gerard (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Based on above description by David Gerard, one alternative to delete is simply to change the article to be about this Fenman guy as an online woo peddler - if he even merits a mention, of course. Otherwise, simply assassinate this useless article. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Sceptic's opinion seems good. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 07:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. It appears that this website is no more, it has ceased to be, it is bereft of life, it rests in peace. It is an ex-website. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Carly Fiorina | Result: Redirect to 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination#May run for now

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    Notability = dumb. If she exist & dumb, article. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Removing my vote to keep. Instead, I propose it be merged. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 07:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. Who is this person? Why is she important enough to warrant mention?Brenden (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    Do rhetorical questions justify deletion? Nutty Roux (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. She's a soon-to-be 2016 Republican presidential candiadate only known for her messy stint as CEO of HP (ie. she has no chance). We don't even have an article on Jeb Bush, in comparison. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Not relevant enough. In her defense though I heard Sean Hannity considered her a RINO but I'm not sure.
  4. Merge into 2016_Republican_Party_presidential_nomination. --TiaC (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Just a rant. Needs rewrite from scratch. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. I actually like the govt./business rant, but agree with David Gerard's goat comment below that sticking it in this article is not the proper venue - ideas for articles that would benefit from this rant are welcome! Cut the relevant biographic info and paste it into the GOP 2016 primary candidate box as already suggested. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  7. I support a relevant-content merge to 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination with TiaC. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 07:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  • I'm willing to be convinced, but most of this article is a coatrack for a rant about incompetent businesspeople and their attitudes in general, which doesn't really belong at this title. (If I knew where it did, I'd put it there.) - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with David. --Castaigne (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Job | Result: Redirect to Book of Job

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

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. Unfunny stub. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 13:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. It came up before (missionality tag). I've redirected it to Book of Job, somewhere both useful and missional - 14:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. This page is very silly indeed. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  • I've changed the redirect to Work ethic as the original was nothing to do with the Biblical Job. BicyclewheelModerator 22:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarpedia | Result: Redirected

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Relevant to how not to do it. Miekal could just as easily have added that to the actual article - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Fuck that noise. He deletes, not adds. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    DG is correct here. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Removing my vote. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 07:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Seems okay ... And the claim that it's dominated by Spam & nearly dead doesn't seem true judging from the Recent Changes page ... Not that it woud matter, as such. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. As much as this would be on mission, it's a nearly dead wiki dominated by spam account creation; and it will never be more than a stub here Miekal 17:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Doesn't look likely to progress beyond stub status. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. Can't see anything relevant to our interests here. SophieWilderModerator 09:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Mikal's analysis is hard hitting. I'm convinced. Delete whatever he says. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    It just occurred to me that Mikal's analysis is much more compelling than I initially gave it credit for. In gact, it's pure genius. The stub template should redirect to the afd template and any articles on dead anythings should be deleted. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Unless this stub (2 lines, for crying out loud!) is expanded to demonstrate why Scholarpedia is a particularly good example of "how not to do it", I don't see why a redirect to Scholarpedia's entry on our Wikisphere list wouldn't suffice. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Coyote | Result: Deleted

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Contains the making of at least a basic stub about the mythological trickster figure. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 17:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Keep, but refocus so that the main emphasis is on the trickster myth figure, as well as any fakelore spin offs. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. What's this got to do with the mission? SophieWilderModerator 20:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    Might be stuff here: wp:Coyote (mythology), wp:Urban coyote, wp:Coyote attacks on humans, and wp:Taylor Mitchell.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 20:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    I'd be for an article about the overstated dangerousness of various animals - sharks especially. But it's quite a way there from here. SophieWilderModerator 21:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    Toronto police too quick to shoot coyote in downtown neighbourhood: Hume

    "The animal was acting aggressively,” spokesman Const. Tony Vella said after the incident, but footage shows otherwise. The poor creature was filmed wandering the streets, even making sure to step aside for passing vehicles. It stops to yawn broadly before loping off into the darkness. This was one well-adapted creature. It did everything but cross at the lights.

    The average raccoon is more destructive than this unfortunate beast.

    The only aggressive behaviour on display Monday night was that of the police. They are seen shooting at the coyote as it walks beside houses, almost with abandon.


    Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 21:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    Hmm... I fail to see your point. Are Coyotes traditionally seen as dangerous to people? SophieWilderModerator 21:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    Hard to say. There are cases of sharks and coyotes killing people, but they are rare and chances are people have likely been disporportionately violent to both. A slightly greater concern is that they attacked pets and there is talk of the "wp:coywolf (here's a link to a Google Image search). Personally, if you want to delete the article, I'd hardly object, but let's give it, say, a month.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    Another Toronto Star article with a picture of the coyote that was shot: Coyote shooting in Cabbagetown was unnecessary, experts say. For what it's worth, you might note that there is an article on pit bulls here.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 22:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    I can't delete it if it's just me. SophieWilderModerator 22:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    Very well. If there is no decent edits to the Coyote article by 1 November 2014, you have my vote to delete. Others might want to move content to another article or make a sub-page to work on. Howzat?Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 22:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    November is here and nothing has changed. SophieWilderModerator 14:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Article about animal-related paranoia, sure. This article, nah. It currently reads like a Fun article, which is really unnecessary here. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. I don't see anything relating to RW:MISSION Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you mean RW:MISSION Spud (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops >_< Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  1. This is not a good article, it's the sort of thing we shove to funspace and forget about. Perhaps a good one is possible - anyone want to demonstrate it is? - David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps if the RW definition of "fun" includes stuff that isn't fun. Perhaps we could create an article called "Wolves, coyotes, and foxes" and have all redirect there, but I doubt most RW'ians will go for it. I say delete them all. If nobody does, and if there's no substantial improvements in the article, I'll delete it article after, say, 1 April 2015, if nobody else does it before me, and if there's isn't some rule or convention against me doing so that I'm ignorant about. Btw, I just noted a Wolf hysteriaCivic CatTalk to Civic Cat 18:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] UNTITLED | Result: ?

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

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. Reason ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

"Dummy article used by Extension:SimpleForms". Is this still something we need & does it have to be in article space? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be something used by various "start an article!" boxes, e.g. on To do. (That said, I see the extension is now unmaintained, so that'll have to go when we 1.23). No idea if it has to be in article space, but I'm disinclined to mess with it - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, this article deletion system & its vague instructions are still total shit. The hell is anybody supposed to know what "preload debate" means? I added the above comment on the "preload debate" link, which has appeared under "goat" (without any indication why), while a meaningless "reason" comment ostensibly signed by me (which I didn't actually write or sign) appears in the delete section above. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Sudden outbreak of common sense | Result: Merged

Sudden outbreak of common sense (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. Currently the article is just a list of good changes of mind that we like, not actually a useful concept or page. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Sounds like stopped clock? I do like the sound of 'sudden outbreak of common sense', though. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. I agree with a lot of what it says on the article's talk page. What the page really lists is liberal points of view being expressed by previously reactionary people or regimes. Some of them resulted in lasting changes, some didn't and could just be considered "stopped clock". None of them would be the result of someone suddenly having a change of heart without bowing to any kind of outside pressure. i'm saying "delete" just because the term is very ill defined. Spud (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. I had the same thought as Carpetsmoker: This sounds like a duplicate of stopped clock, even if the title is rather catchy. Perhaps some of the content can be incorporated into our stopped clock article as "similar concepts" or something like it? ScepticWombat (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Aside from the article being listcrufty, common sense is kind of a shitty rallying point which people from all sides of the political spectrum and science/pseudoscience spectrum appeal to. The things listed on that page all came about for various complicated reasons, & attributing them to sudden outbreaks of common sense is facile. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

Why redirect? Is it really a term people are going to search for? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
What's wrong with having a snarky redirect to stopped clock? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Orion's Arm | Result: Deleted

Orion's Arm (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. This just seems to be a load of fancruft about an online sci-fi story of no great importance. Spud (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. That's a bit rougher than I would have phrased it but, yeah, pretty much that. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 06:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Whatever is relevant to RW can surely be slotted into a section in libertarianism/transhumanism (suggested headlines: "in popular culture"/"utopian ideas"). ScepticWombat (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. A mention in transhumanism is the most this deserves. BicyclewheelModerator 14:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    I've added what seemed pertinent from OA to the relevant section of transhumanism, making OA ready for the chop. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. All useful info is out. KILL KILL KILL oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Orangutan | Result: Merged into Primate

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Ook. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. <picks louse out of Weaseloid's fur and eats it> ook ook eeeee! Nutty Roux (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. I don't see why we can't have an article about this group of people on this wiki. Though perhaps the article should be expanded with more information on their cultural practices and commonly held beliefs. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Because, Ook!, that's why! ScepticWombat (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. RationalWiki is not WikiSpecies, and we don't do articles on animals for their own sake. Let this go the way of Felidae and Otter. SophieWilderModerator 13:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Fold into Primate whatever might be relevant. Zero (talk - contributions) 13:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. I'll second the above votes. (Fold into primates ) C6541 (TC) 23:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  4. Above reasons. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Goat Orangutan

  • Pour content into Primate, make that article a way better overview of our near relatives (and that would be a missional article because creationism) - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It's a nice little bit of writing but it shouldn't be in an article on its own here. Move the content to Primate, add a similar section on gorillas and you're on your way to making a cracking little article. Spud (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What they said. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge with primate Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've always wanted to vote orangutan for something. Landmartian (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Power set | Result: Deleted

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

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. Hopeless stub. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Two meters. AgingHippie (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Set theory is witchcraft. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 15:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Why is this an article in the first place? Like, did we have some crazies asserting bullshit about sets? Ever? Ikanreed (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    No, idiot. We had an original member of the site adding something he thought was interesting back before this painful deletion culture arose. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    You're pretty fucking crazy about missionality when it comes to things that actually have pseudo-scientific bents, but then something arbitrarily dictionarylike is precious memories.
    Is this some kind of fear-of-change thing? I don't get what's going on in your head. Ikanreed (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    This is a little longer than I prefer because I continue to observe a bad habit of yours that I bristle at. Let me walk you through this. You asked a question. I answered it. See that part? The editor wrote something because he thought it was interesting. That was common back in the day. That's the answer. You may not like it, but it has nothing to do with me. Now you're putting words into my mouth and ascribing intent to me that you've fabricated out of whole cloth. I did not express any wish the article not be deleted. Some need to be, however in this instance I feel like I'm remembering correctly that there was already a big discussion of what to do with math related articles. I certainly didn't express any wish that it not be deleted because of my "precious memories". I simply made an observation based on my understanding of the prevailing sentiment about content when this site was young: people generally felt comfortable creating article because there wasn't a cohort of deletionists jumping to smite articles hours after being created. In other words, it's all too common that Youkantreed. I hope you take a moment to consider this and learn something about reading what people actually say. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    I see. yet another "I was overtly hostile, framing things as a disagreement, and clearly trying to make a point, but don't you dare ascribe intent to me" reply. Fine. I don't know what you get out of that pretext, but I'll grant you it. Again. Ikanreed (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, Nutty, the article was created 11 December 2014, or 42 days ago. So "an original member of the site adding something he thought was interesting back before this painful deletion culture arose" doesn't seem accurate, since he added it after "this painful deletion culture arose". Anyways, this has been a lovely conversation. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:08, 22 January 2015 (UUTC
    Thanks for correcting me. You are right. I was absolutely positively incorrect in making any assumptions about this very early editor's lack of savvy on how you all run things now. Delete delete delete. Did you delete yet? Oh good. Nutty Roux (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Before I confirm yet again that it's time to show your your ass from a hole in the ground, please do me the courtesy of explaining your analysis there. Dude, you're a moron. It's ok. Lots of stupid people learn they're stupid. The smarter among them never will. That's you. Nutty Roux (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    I am not going to respond. Please, calm down. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 12:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Fred Karger | Result: Keep

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Generic anti-gay stuff sounds like it counts - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Harmless unique content consonant enough with mission. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. See above two. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Seems okay. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Why not? So the article is basically a stub (I'd love to hear more about the "responsible for the ads that ruined Michael Dukakis's run for president in 1988"-stuff for instance), but being the first openly gay POTUS candidate ought to merit a keep both in terms of U.S. political history and RW mission. It also illustrates that there are still people willing to run for the GOP who aren't Tea Party nutters or über rich vulture capitalists. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. Looking around, He hasn't done a whole lot recently besides generic anti anti-gay stuff and basically had 5 minutes of fame as a openly gay, no-shot candidate last election. Basically, what are we going to say that wikipedia doesn't already cover in a more formal tone. If there is more and i just didn't see it, i'll rescind my vote though. Miekal 13:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. He might be relevant in a few years if US conservatives come to their senses and decide to take a more conciliatory approach to gay issues. But otherwise, no. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Thallium | Result: Deleted

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Currently the article appears to be mostly about foolhardy uses of a toxic chemical in consumer products. This seems to be reasonably related to the mission, at least to me. It could use some sources, to be sure; then again we aren't Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 19:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. It's an example of scientific stupidity. Hubris, and reminders of it, are sometimes required. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Unless radium also deserves deletion, I don't see why thallium is singled out. Okay, the snark factor is a wee bit over the top in the latter, but that hardly merits the axe, does it? ScepticWombat (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. This was written by someone who thought Rw was wikipedia-lite; it has no relation to any part of the mission SophieWilderModerator 22:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. But it forms "large flabby singly-charged ions" ... just not enough to keep around. Delete!MarmotHead (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. K#ill it. --Castaigne (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Kill it with fire. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. --Coffee (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  1. Meh. Every wiki that has any information has an element set. Sterile (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Comparative advantage | Result: Deleted

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Ehh, stubs happen, it's not useless or off-mission - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    I don't object to its length, I object to its content/quality. Show it to an economist and see how they will react.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    I would like to see it kept, but its current content is crap (see my delete vote) and I can't be bothered to rewrite it here and now. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Keep, rewrite from scratch as a one-sentence stub, and hope someone eventually makes a decent article out of it. Probably won't happen, but you never know. Landmartian (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. An orphaned article that contains a very distorted description of the actual concept (see wp:Comparative advantage). It seems to have been created solely as a vehicle for a rather... unique rebuttal to a MRA talking point. ZooGuard (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Copy the MRA part to an appropriate article, delete the rest. BicyclewheelModerator 23:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. It's a useful concept... But is unlikely to develop into anything useful to the mission. Move the immigration stuff to an immigration article, the misogyny stuff to a misogyny article, and kill it. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    I read the WP article, realized our article on it is also a wee bit, kind of, somewhat, slightly, wrong. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. This article simply seems wrong. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. This is not what economists mean by the term. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Eh, there's something Not Quite Right about using this subject to deal with issues around misogyny/immigration and the like. --MtDNotorious Sodomite 04:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    The theory of comparative advantage has often been used to show how relations between the sexes can be made more harmonious and productive; see for example the "Division of Labor" chapter of It's Not You, It's the Dishes (originally published as Spousonomics), or this article, the latter of which shows how even when women are superior at all household tasks, it is still optimal for men to help with the chores in which they have a comparative advantage, so women can focus on what they have a comparative advantage in. Wikipedia notes that sex‐differentiated comparative advantage in tasks was part of what led to the evolutionary origin of the sexual division of labor in humans. As for immigration, economist Benjamin Powell explains, "free trade in labor, like goods and services, allows people to do what is in their comparative advantage. Immigrants free up natives to take more valuable positions." That was exactly the point that the article made. Landmartian (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    I did not investigate the subject in depth, but the Wikipedia page has a vastly different explanation of the term. If this term is also (ab)used to promote something in RW:MISSION, then it seems it's a good page to have, but, it needs to 1) explain what the standard definition is, and then 2) explain how this definition/idea is abused. As you see, almost everyone agrees this page should be deleted as it stands be cause it seems misleading, so if you want to keep this page, you need to rewrite it (if it fits RW:MISSION that is, I don't know if it does as I don't know enough about this) Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  7. While an article on this topic is probably relevant, the current incarnation misses the central point of the comparative advantage hypothesis: That a focus on comparative advantages in the guise of cheap labour and/or raw materials tends to lock in poor countries as low-profit primary sector producers. Indirectly, comparative advantages thus simply assumes that the status quo is somehow the default or "natural" position, missing the point that comparative advantages have their own history and can be shifted. If taken to its extreme, it's the argument that only Great Britain should have industrialised, because the rest of the world would be "comparatively" better at shipping food and raw materials to Britain and buying British manufactured goods in return. Sure, comparative advantages can be (ab)used in a gender perspective too, but that's hardly the most prevalent, or (arguably) its most problematic usage. Its use in ensconcing gender inequality is "merely" a subset of the general kicking away the ladder[wp] logic by which comparative advantage thinking tends to favour the status quo (or even seeks a return to a past status quo). ScepticWombat (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    The concept of comparative advantage also can be used to support free immigration, which can help solve the problem of locking in poor countries as low-profit primary sector producers in a global economy. Suppose Britain has all the factories. If people are free to migrate from agricultural countries to Britain, they can still participate in industry, provided that they can compete with the native workers there. In practice, industry has tended to be quite willing to hire immigrant workers, despite their cultural differences.
    Comparative advantage exists not only between countries but between individual people, so it not only makes sense to have free trade among nations but also among all the people in the world. The full implementation of that requires the removal of impediments to migration so that people can travel to wherever in the world they can contribute most optimally to production. Landmartian (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    The problem is again that comparative advantage arguments seem to have a nasty tendency to morph into a sort "economistic" version of paternalism: You're comparatively better suited to a minimum wage job trundling hazardous waste, because I'm willing and able to pay to be educated, and so I'm "over-qualified" for such a task, while you come from a family of semi-illiterate subsistence farmers in Bongo Bongo Land[wp]. Yes, comparative advantages can be used to argue for freer migration, but look at who is doing the arguing: I doubt it has as much to do with the wonders of multi-culturalism or meritocracy as it has with keeping minimum wages at, well, a minimum. Also, who gets to determine what people's or countries comparative advantage are?[wp] ScepticWombat (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
It's the invisible hand that guides people to the job at which they have a comparative advantage. People apply for the highest-paying job, with the best working conditions, for which they're qualified, and end up where they have a comparative advantage. Landmartian (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  • How abused does a concept need to be before it warrants an article? Like I don't think anyone here thinks that Quantum physics shouldn't exist. This subject is a lot narrower in terms of who abuses it. I don't feel like I have an objective assessment for when it should versus shouldn't. Ikanreed (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Some concepts have articles because they're abused, others have articles because they can be used to counter abuses. Landmartian (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Some of them want to abuse you. Some of them want to be used by you. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Sweet dreams,ScepticWombat (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Weaseloid.
Everybody's looking for something. BicyclewheelModerator 21:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Who am I to disagree? Landmartian (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Quora | Result: Deleted

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

[edit] Keep

  1. It contains the word "misogyny" so it is totally on mission. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    This page is shit, and should be deleted, but Nutty's obsession with dismissing certain classes of bullshit as beneath our attention is obnoxious as fuck. Ikanreed (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    I don't know how you get along in life. Not all "classes of bullshit" are on-mission. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    I get along in life by not putting up with non-answer deflections like that. Authoritarian, traditionalist bullshit is one of the primary targets of both rationalwiki and feminism. You get stuck on it for some damn reason and rather than articulate a clear unambiguous argument as to why the whole "Authoritarian as hell" point is unreasonable, you just elected to follow a campaign of sarcasm, pettiness, and snide derisive backhanded insults at people who share a goal of making rationalwiki an informative, comprehensive source for people who want to approach the world skeptically. I don't know if you're just one of those people who goes has unwarranted disdain for the social sciences, but the concerns here are articulated far more evidentially than you're passively giving credit for. Ikanreed (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    Non-answer deflections? Youcantreed. Don't you dare suggest that I have disdain for social sciences, by which I assume you mean the narrow set of interests you express. You don't know the first thing about me, what I believe, or what I've chosen to stand for. Not that you deserve a response in this regard, but I will say that aspects of my entire career have about activism on behalf of traditionally disenfranchised people. Your intimation is revolting. Your implication that the social issues you're concerned with have anything to do with skepticism, while certainly with merit in the broader skeptical movement, is the "non-answer deflection" to any discussion of what the mission actually is. It's not about a general approach to skepticism. Simply asserting that "Authoritarian, traditionalist bullshit is one of the primary targets of both rationalwiki and feminism" is simply that — a mere assertion. Addressing authoritarianism seems to be the main justification for ever deeper and deeper explorations of topics I don't think are of particular relevance to what authoritarianism actually is. It's not simple bigotry, hate, or disdain for the "other" and subaltern. This kind of response of yours is why I don't think you're a worthwhile discussant. You spew nonsense in the guise of some kind of intellectual authority you simply lack. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    "I don't agree with you therefor your arguments lack intellectual merit" is pretty much the recurring shitty core of every single time this comes up for you. You know damn well it's not true, and that it's a lazy-as-fuck ad hominem to disguise the larger bare assertion that there isn't a dramatic pseudoscience element to a lot gender related beliefs and behaviors and a larger authoritarian structure to support it. You can go through my edit history, and I've always approached feminism articles from an empirical and skeptical position, and never endorsed fluff articles that don't help like this one.
    But you've got this incredibly wrong-headed idea that because fluff exists it can invalidate a topic. Which is dumb. Really dumb. You know why it's dumb. If you put more effort into fixing the issues in gender related articles and actually nuking the genuinely off-mission ones, and less into mindless derision we'd all be better off. Ikanreed (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    I find it very interesting, Nutty, that all of the "classes of bullshit" that you find to be not on-mission all happen to be ones that you personally dislike. Specifically, anything involving misogyny is not "on-mission", which I don't find credible. --Castaigne (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

# How is it different from Yahoo! Answers? Neither particular strike me as critical or that useful, but do seem to meet at least point 1 of RW:MISSION ("Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement."). Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

For a start, the current text says nothing about pseudoscience or the anti-science movement, and implies that the only reason for including it are some gender-related issues in the community. I am not opposed to the existence of an article about Quora, I am opposed to this being the article for the foreseeable future.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, many arguments for misogyny are pseudo-scientific ... In any case, I've done some interwebz searching & thinking, and changed my vote. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
So rewrite and improve, as just happened with Pantera. BicyclewheelModerator 19:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. I don't see any mission relevance in the current text. ZooGuard (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. How can this every be mission-centric? Sorry, I don't buy it. Yahoo! Answers should probably deleted too. Sterile (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. From what I can gather in a few minutes of internet searching, Quora isn't a "a cesspool of misogyny, racism and homophobia spun out of control" as the linked article claims. Of course it has some dubious content, but you have that on any large site (where people gather, the fuckwads also gather), and Quora seems to deal with this as best as they can (a problem almost all large sites struggle with), perhaps they should do more, but it's certainly no 4chan/8chan where "anything goes". Unless someone comes up with decent information/examples showing Quora really *is* misogynists, racists or homophobic (the linked article isn't enough, IMHO) I vote to merge te content in one of the other pages (manosphere?) & delete Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. I can't substantiate the claims made about Quora by research. Carpetsmoker appears to be correct. I say delete. --Castaigne (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

Merge it into the manosphere compendium. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The thing about that is it really isn't an overt part of the manosphere even. It's just a site with some sexism problems. A lot of those exist, and it's not really uniquely notable in that regard. Ikanreed (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Fine, delete it. I don't know or care anything about it. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed economy | Result: deleted

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Expand, not delete. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. It's hard to imagine a very strong page, but making note of people who view mixed economies as "socialism" and the like is probably good fodder for snark. Ikanreed (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. Tentatively maybe on-mission, but this is just a dictionary definition right now Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
That sounds lke an argument to improve, rather than delete. Add some arguments about why it's good (or not) with examples. SophieWilderModerator 20:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. Drive-by stub by a lame parodist. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Anne Rice | Result: deleted

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

This is just fancruft; barely relevant to site missions, if at all. We don't need an article on every minor celebrity who identifies as feminist or pro-human-rights. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. What's wrong with a bit of background on someone with views relevant to missional topics? Nutty Roux (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    Well, since everybody is pro- or anti- something relevant to the missions to a greater or lesser extent, that's basically everybody, and we'd end up as an unfocused directory of somewhat famous people & stuff they've said about things. It's much better to stick to people and topics with a meaningful connection to the missions rather than a vague tenuous one. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    I think it's indicative of the current (low) state of RW's community that I am wondering if Nutty's serious or sarcastic.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    Sarcastic. Feminism isn't missional except as it relates to missional topics. Feminists are not relevant by extension, but only because they relate to a missional topic. —Commenting on something mentioned in support of a missional topic does not make one missional. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. See Nutty. Edit: Nutty is a sarcastic ass, again. But feminism is still relevant. Feminists are relevant, by extension. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    One article about Beyonce coming right up. BicyclewheelModerator 19:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    I detect sarcasm, but will pretend that I don't. Beyonce is relevant, if you wish to write about her. Perhaps her attempts to promote feminism and the backlash that she has recieved? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. I wouldn't mind a delete, though the article is not completely out of bounds for RW. I did stumble across it a couple of weeks ago and wondered about the relevance. If it's to be kept, then I'd say it needs some expansion to indicate why Rice is important/interesting enough to merit an article as the current content reads as rather formulaic "she's a feminist and famous" boilerplate. I've given a heads up to the the original creator of the article (it's of quite recent origin) so (s)he has the opportunity to pitch in with a "keep" argument. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Delete.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. I must have been in a warm and fuzzy festive mood when I edited it on 15 December, otherwise, I would have nominated it for deletion myself. That and I don't want to be known as just the geezer that nominates every new page for deletion. True, we don't need articles on all minor celebs who at some time have said, "I'm a feminist", or, "I've given up religion". Spud (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Every celebrity is either a feminist or a non/anti-feminist; the mere fact of having an opinion on feminism is not really enough to justify having an article, is it? BicyclewheelModerator 19:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Agree, but the implications of your statement are potentially heretical at worse, heterodox at best. Be careful. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Right now this page simply says nothing interesting as such. Did I really learn anything from reading that page, other than some personal views of Anne Rice? No. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Deceit | Result: Keep

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Come on. It's one of the Seven Deadly Virtues. It is also just bizarre enough to be interesting, and that excuses a whole lot. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 06:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Yes, you could salami slice the more esoteric forms of deceit and make them into their own articles... but why? Also, a lot of these subcategories (affinity fraud, path dependency) don't even have their own articles yet. Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Above reasons. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Needs improvement; but seems good to have (many pages link to this) Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    Update: I've made some fairly large edits; it's still not a great page, but I think it's a lot better.Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. This is really a list of rhetorical techniques used in a lot of anti-science, pseudoscience and denialism. If it really does get deleted the content should somehow be ported into other articles such as rhetoric. Sterile (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. An embarrassing remnant of RW's early days (based on the old Schlafly meme of "liberal deceit"). Stripped of the CP-baiting, it's just a listicle about a generic concept. RW needs less of those. ZooGuard (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. This is not a good article, and being not a good article at length doesn't help - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. Not so quick, David. Ask Mikal if this needs to be deleted. Your opinion is tainted by a long and sordid history of creating excellent content. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  1. Move to CP space? Scream!! (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Pantera | Result: Keep

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Cut it way down and stick to the references. It's salvageable. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    Does this mean that you volunteer to do it?--ZooGuard (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    Does it look not-stupid-enough-to-delete now? Or does it need more complete rewriting improvement? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    I suggest treating it as a fringe "theory". Start with the 2nd century rumor and the generic "Panthera", then point out that someone claims that the actual multi-named Roman soldier is identical with the character, not the other way round, as it is now.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    That sounds good. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Subject matter is crucial for the relatively benign claim that Jesus probably wasn't supernatural. Ikanreed (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    You know what? That was a stupid post. That's what. Ikanreed (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    It might not be crucial, but it doesn't hurt, and it does offer an alternative to the virgin birth. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    I agree, but it's a bit like saying aliens provide an alternative to creationism. True, but you don't want to through in your lot with pseudoscience. Cleaned up and clarified, it's a good article. Ikanreed (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. I've just read the old version of the article from the day it was nominated for deletion. God, it was shit! FuzzyCatPotato has done a great job of cleaning it up. I think the page as it is now details a notable example of someone questioning Jesus' divinity and is wort keeping for that reason. Spud (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Now it's been turned into a proper article instead of a crappy...whatever the hell we call what she does... it's a keeper. BicyclewheelModerator 23:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. An embarrassment to the wiki, created in the august 2007 by, ahem, Barbara Shack. Apparently some people later added some ridiculous stuff to the article as a protest. It didn't help. ZooGuard (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, it's pretty terrible. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC) The previous terrible version is effectively gone & FuzzyCatPotato's new version is alright, so I withdraw my vote to delete. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. The gospel walking-on-water Jesus didn't exist. Somebody with a name like "Jesus" may have existed who gave birth to the mythical Jesus. But if we doubt this guy existed how can we make any comments about an hypothetical father? Delete.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    That seems weak. This article explores the possible father of a possible Jesus, which is relevant to our mission of looking critically at religion. Should we also delete the Jesus page, because Jesus merely possibly existed? Furthermore, if this man really is Jesus's father, then it dispels myths about a virgin birth, making the human Jesus more founded. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    A "possible" father of "possible" person is also weak. It makes about as much sense as arguing whether or not Hercules had a human father.
    Furthermore we do have at least two pages which talk about the possible non-existence of Jesus.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    It would be comparable to an article on Herakles' father, if people worshipped Herakles as a god. They don't. More than a billion worship Jesus as a god. It's important to show that it's possible that he had a normal conception and birth, and this article helps that goal. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Then we disagree.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] Category:Slaveholders | Result: Deleted

Category:Slaveholders (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Keep

I did not add pharaoh, rather left it up for discussion. I do not own articles, that's Ryulong who owns super sentei and denies the denies it has size change, like all mvoies with giant women. [5]. I say drop Hitler because otherwise Lincolns whitehouse staffed by slaves would count; not all pharaohs owned slaves either so ignore that one, pretty sure not all Caliphs did either. Also notice who David Gerard didn't remove Muhammad. It's sexist to think someone LGBT can't be racist; your ignoring this category is historical revisionism. Is there a rule against flash mobbing these discussions, becuase that would favor anyone who knows off wiki contact info; so it would be a dumb rule. Also it is polite to allow both sides to form a flashmob; mentioning an end date would assist with this so ample time is allowed to prepare an infinitely large jury.

[edit] Delete

  1. Pointless category, and EE's argument in favour of its relevance illustrates why, as well as implying that Wikipedia refusing to go along with EE is some sort of conspiracy. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    As I put it in the nomination on the category page: "I agree with Wikipedia that this category is rather pointless. We could start adding pretty much every ancient history figure to it. Contrary to EE's claim on the talkpage, this is not some sort of historical whitewashing to avoid having "too many U.S. Presidents" included, but instead it illustrates the pointlessness of the category". ScepticWombat (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Delete Scream!! (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oh, it's an EE dropping? Kill - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    this in particular is not a good basis for deletion. I don't have any reason to explicitly keep the category, but not one of the claims here in delete makes any sense at all from a wiki quality perspective. Ikanreed (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry that I didn't copy/paste my reason from the nomination on the category page. I've done so now just below my original delete vote. Nevertheless, I still think that EE's argument for creating the category is actually an excellent argument against its relevance. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    It was actually created by CivicCat in November 2013.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Ah, my bad. I didn't check the fossil record, and EE's justifications on the category talkpage seemed very "ownership'ish". Sloppy work on my part, sorry. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. What? No one added Obama yet for enslaving us all with his Nazi public health care?!?! Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Useless diffuse category. Thomas Jefferson is an obvious candidate, lately in the public gaze, but Alfred the Great and Pharaoh also qualify. So what? I don't see the point of gathering such aah, diversity into one category, to say nothing of the extensively tedious wikilawyering it will invite around characters like Hitler. Carpetsmoker may be joking above, but some currently prolific RW editors have a less humorous bent. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Delete. This is not a defining category and would include almost every person we have a page on from a few hundred years back. If we must have something like this, a "List of people who owned slaves" page would allow us to make the point about past attitude towards slavery without catagory-spamming the wiki.--TiaC (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  7. Reluctant delete. I can see why it looks missiony, but in the end it's not really relevant to the arguments about either individual slaveholders, or about slavery itself (unless anyone is saying "slavery was OK because Thomas Jefferson"). In the end it's like the arguments about Hitler being a vegetarian, or Einstein being religious - it's a bit of random gossip that says nothing about the issue. BicyclewheelModerator 19:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  8. We don't need a category. We need a page that lists slaveowners in eras when slavery was beginning to be more commonly attacked, such as Jeff. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

It's more tangible & less arbitrary than many of our other categories (right of reason, centrist stupidity, extreme moonbattery, batshit crazy, bullshit, unremitting horror, etc). WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but those are extremely informative categories. Helpful ones. They alert you to the flavor of crazy you're dealing with. Whereas this one is dry historic fact. Ikanreed (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
You closed this after a day! The much more important issue is whether or not this slavery information will be important enough to include on the pages for presidents up to Lincoln.

Most of the entries for unremitting horror are serious though; just dry historic bones. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Non-binary gender | Result: Deleted

Non-binary gender (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. I've got no objection to an article on this subject. What I can't stand is copypasting from other wikis. The red links and the broken templates for "Quotation", "Urdu language" and "Citation error" clearly indicate that this was carelessly copied from another wiki. Non-binary gender on Wikipedia redirects to Genderqueer, which is quite different from this page. I'm guessing this is a copy of an old Wikipedia Non-binary gender article before it was changed into a redirect. Spud (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    It contains text from both wp:Third gender and wp:Genderqueer.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. KILL KILL KILL oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 06:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    KILL KILL KILL, but just the parts that are redlinks, that are templates that we don't have, and that are blatant copies. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. and rewrite from scratch BicyclewheelModerator 18:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Delete for reasons stated above. In addition, we have Gender binary already, which seems to cover the same subject already? Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Delete Well, fuck. I didn't know we couldn't copy-paste from Wikipedia. Mea culpa on that one guys, I'll go delete it, I'll have to rewrite it at some point. It was a clumsily stitched together Frankenstein of an article anyway, I'll write a better version in the future. My bad. Asarelah (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

Wow. Nominated for deletion within 12 hours of being created. Nice. The article is actually stitched together from a few resources pretty well. They're CC by SA, but not attributed. It's great that nobody bothered to even let the principle author know that his or her contribution is going to be deleted for reasons that are entirely correctable. Good work. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh god, we've become Wikipedia. Ikanreed (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Communpedia | Result: Merged

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. Nearly dead wiki that doesn't seem to really matter, and theres no real way to make more than as stub for it Miekal 17:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Delete everything. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] John Duffield | Result: Deleted

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

[edit] Keep

  1. Time to dredge up some references and make this turd sparkle. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. This article is Encyclopedia Dramatica quality. Write something sober and considered or this needs killing. The talk page is a disgrace. We are not here to target people. David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    And the subject has complained. Maybe it's a list of valid concerns, but if so then it seriously needs writing to that effect - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. ^--Miekal 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. It does read as if someone's got a personal vendetta. Scream!! (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. The sources are poor: Mostly there are internet forums with little (to nothing) to link JD to the writer. The Amazon site just is. There doesn't stand to be any improvement, so I don't think there is any reason to keep. And the above. Sterile (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Delete, let physicsBlog and Gizmodo keep a log of this crap so he can try to sue them. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    Wait. Didn't you write it, defend it, and taunt him — Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs
    I wrote it and defended it till he decided to try and get my personal information in order to harass me. It's not worth it on a wiki. I see less provocation than what can be see in the articles for ShockofGod, Ed poor, and VenomFangX. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    What do those articles have to do with the price of fish? There's nothing unreasonable about asking for the identity of a gutless anonymous editor taunting you. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    The price of fish? It was to show the level of snark and insults in pages which have already existed for years. Where the hell did you get fish? Why not is pretty much what is expressed in the doxing page. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    This. - Grant (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    Context does help. I think it's a legitimate question when I get crap for being insulting when dozens of other pages have existed for years with much more insulting (and sometimes more invasive) information with brainstars for quality. Why is this not a legitimate question and a non-sequitur? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    You're right. Why non-seq? Because Nutty. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 08:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Delete and ban editors who start getting into legal discussions with visitors discussing potential litigation. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  7. Delete. Not really notable. - Grant (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  8. Begone already. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  9. I agree that we should delete the page. He's not relevant, his ideas might deserve a sentence or two on another page if they've been mentioned enough places.--TiaC (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    (I've copied TiaC's comment from the Goat section below to this section too to make it easy to keep score on the delete votes) ScepticWombat (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


[edit] Goat

Maybe collapse into a section in Alternative cosmology? We could just put a quick summery of his theory and a sentence or two debunking it. But yes, the cyberstalking of him across the web should go.--TiaC (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't know what "debunk" means if you think an alternative cosmology can be debunked in one or two sentences. Back in my day, we called that argument by assertion. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
It is surprisingly easy to point out a few glaring issues in a half-baked idea. E.g. "The theory conflicts with numerous astronomical measurements and ignores well-accepted ideas such as conservation of charge."--TiaC (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
How can you tell? There's nothing about what is there is on the page. Just that it exists. Sterile (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
See, that's what you call an argument by assertion. Statements like yours work better when you cite someone credible actually doing the analysis. Is this sloppy thinking and argument the norm among some of the louder new editors? Nutty Roux (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Please tell me where I said not to use references? As noted on the talk page, there are refutations of his ideas out there (In fact, some are even in the references). However, none of them are in the article. As a minor internet kook, one of the best sources would be his own book.--TiaC (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you've put me on ignore. Because obviously I'm the one in an echo chamber and not you. You are amazingly antagonistic, don't actually contribute outside of attacking people, and ignore anyone who disagrees with you or your methods.
--TiaC (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I am certainly antagonistic to morons and my days of contributing as a board member are over, though I'm still and officer. I hope you're in the minority in thinking I don't contribute anything. You've been here for s little over two months. I've apparently pissed away years of good will and being well regarded to fight with people like you, but it's worth it if I can bully enough of you into leaving. My motivation ought to be pretty clear. To say that I ignore people who disagree with me or my "methods" when it's pretty obvious I smell blood and can't help myself when people like you run your mouths, is a lttle weird, don't you think? I wish I could ignore you. I really do. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
So harassment's fine when you're doing it. Got it.--TiaC (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Sterile's point is still valid here, in that those sources aren't exactly credible. While having said refutations present would be better than the current status quo, it's still not a good solution compared to just deleting it and moving on. - Grant (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's another perspective: if these ideas aren't notable enough for any serious refutations to be published, why should we have an article about them at all? - Grant (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should delete the page. He's not relevant, his ideas might deserve a sentence or two on another page if they've been mentioned enough places.--TiaC (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Ann McElhinney | Result: Speedy deletion

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

[edit] Keep

[edit] Delete

  1. Ad hominem, no citations, no links. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. I agree with FuzzyCatPotato. Not only should this article be deleted, but it should be recreated. McElhinney is certainly an enemy of science and of nature, but she nonetheless deserves a better article than the current one.In Dawkins we trust (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. On-mission subject matter, terrible article. 141.134.75.236 (talk)

[edit] Goat

  1. This version needs to burn so somebody who isn't crazy can rewrite it.--Miekal 03:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Robot | result: DELETED

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

[edit] Keep

  • Strictly hypothetical for different non-existant version of article: transhumanist assertions about robotics, the end of labor, conspiracies about drones and automation are all on mission. Ikanreed (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. The article robot just appears to be a series of trivia about various robots or proto-robots in no particular order. It isn't a good overview of the subject & doesn't appear to serve the site missions. It's been mission-tagged for two months with no improvement. See talk page for previous discussions. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. 2009 creation by driveby editor; has had work since then, but nothing very good. Longish, but sorta sucks - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. If it would stop the plagiarism from Wikipedia and the whining and cries of persecution after it gets undone, OK. Spud (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    1. I bet the whining and crying never gets as bad as Talk:Felidae. SophieWilderModerator 17:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

Maybe the stuff about robots in mythology could go in the ancient astronauts article if they've been mentioned in that context. SophieWilderModerator 22:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Talos is an example, but the text is not worth moving - any coverage in the AA article will have to be writt2n from scratch.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Sluthate.com | Result: redirected

Sluthate.com (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

[edit] Keep

  1. It is basically the manosphere in a nutshell and is more raw than Return of Kings and provides a better look at misognyny.
  2. Keep. I consider it on-mission to document the places where the loons dwell. This article would be better served by an overview of the prominent leaders/posters of the board, however. --Castaigne (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think a dual PUAHate/Sluthate article might work. I don't think there should be articles for every Manosphere website though, only the most notable ones. I think Manosphere should otherwise act as a containment --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

  1. Not notable for project and covered at Manosphere -- Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. I am extremely reluctant to support deleting content when it's even marginally missional or good support for a missional subject. This is very much off-mission. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support