RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/EvoWiki/Terms of use

EvoWiki/Terms of use | Result: deleted

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) No relevance to RW's mission or our coverage or current project of porting over Evowiki articles to RW. We don't need to maintain a static copy of -every- single page on Evowiki, otherwise we may have just kept Evowiki up as it's own site nobody could edit. "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a canonical example of cruft. Alec Sanderson (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Delete all EvoWiki pages of a non-article nature. We didn't keep RationalWikiWiki's policy pages etc, why keep EvoWiki's? We're not the Dead Wiki Museum. Bicycle  wheel silverbrain.png 21:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Redundant 21:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) For crying out loud, why is there any discussion. DELETE.Scream!! (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) This vote applies to all other EW articles. (A) I think plenty of the pages are relevant to RW's mission -- many contain content or discussion of ideas that's relevant to RW's goals. They also document a skeptic website; to me, this is akin to keeping copies of some of talkorigins's pages if the archive ever went down. (B) RW isn't maintaining a copy of every document -- only these project-related ones. 18:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We already -have- a page documenting evowiki though. Why is evowiki so special it gets it's entire policy page catalog also brought over to be perused and not, say, conservpaedias policy pages or wikipedias? Citizendium doesn't have large quantities of it's articles sitting on RW servers because it isn't relevant to host the actual policyp ages here, it suffices to talk about them on the citizendium page. And it isn't our job to maintain talk.origin archives either.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "We already -have- a page documenting evowiki though" -- and does it document EW's policies in full?
 * "Why is evowiki so special it gets it's entire policy page catalog also brought over to be perused and not, say, conservpaedias policy pages or wikipedias?" -- Not least because it's ours, and because its goals mostly align with RW's; WP's and CP's are significantly different.
 * On citizendium -- if it ever falls, and if the RMF buys it, then why not copy over (some of) the policy pages, if only to show why it fell? 18:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Do we cover evowikis relevant policies in full? No" Well then we should get working on that evowiki article. " Not least because it's ours, and because its goals mostly align with RW's; WP's and CP's are significantly different Yes, and? Just because we own the domain now doesn't mean it's still important we forever maintain snapshots of policy pages, nor does the fact it aligns with our own goals. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As to your "show -how- it fell- point, we don't need to actually show people the policy pages of citizendium (or any website) to tell them why those policies led to it falling. That's just stupid. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Well then we should get working on that evowiki article." Or just keep the project pages and let people see for themselves. Again, where's the harm?
 * "Yes, and? Just because we own the domain now doesn't mean it's still important we forever maintain snapshots of policy pages, nor does the fact it aligns with our own goals." (A) Preserving lost info and making it accurate and easily accessible (as opposed to web-archiving or guessing from viewing other wikis) seems important, (B) preserving the policy of a similar-minded wiki for review or incorporation seems important, (C) maintaining their project pages seems intellectually honest when incorporating their project into ours.
 * "we don't need to actually show people the policy pages of citizendium (or any website) to tell them why those policies led to it falling. That's just stupid." We don't. We could summarize their policies and the effects those policies had in excruciating detail. But there's (a) no harm in letting people view the original policies and (b) no substitute for the original. 19:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the internet will be forever ruined by the lack of the Evowiki about us, terms of use or main page. Man is it a shame we lost that Featured article policy page. page. They are hypercritical to the fight against pseudoism and straight up antiscience. Thank god Fuzzy preserved the pages til RW falls as well.
 * "Or just keep the project pages and let people see for themselves. Again, where's the harm?" you heard it here first folks, Fuzzy thinks improving Ratwiki articles is less important than just keeping copies of everything on the internet here. Also that "Well i already put them on Ratwiki so now you have to justify deleting them, not me justify why we needed them in the first place" argument again.
 * "(B) preserving the policy of a similar-minded wiki for review or incorporation seems important, (C) maintaining their project pages seems intellectually honest when incorporating their project into ours." We dont need to keep carbon copies of Evowiki policy pages to cannibalize some of their policies. And nobody is claiming we made up the articles wholesale, being able to find out how the parts of the evowiki articles thath aven't been RWified yet were written doesn't actually tell me anything about the subject besides it "promises" it was written accurately and truthfully
 * Excuse me while i port over the various USSR and North Korean constitution/governing documents/governmental orders to help "explain" just WHY those countries failed/are failing. Rationalwiki? more like documentwiki. But I won't actually tell you why, you'll have to divine it by reading them, as per earlier, we don't need to improve our actual pages on the subject, we put their policies here instead!.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Because the internet will be forever ruined by the lack of the Evowiki about us, terms of use or main page. Man is it a shame we lost that Featured article policy page. page. They are hypercritical to the fight against pseudoism and straight up antiscience. Thank god Fuzzy preserved the pages til RW falls as well. "Or just keep the project pages and let people see for themselves. Again, where's the harm?" you heard it here first folks, Fuzzy thinks improving Ratwiki articles is less important than just keeping copies of everything on the internet here. Also that "Well i already put them on Ratwiki so now you have to justify deleting them, not me justify why we needed them in the first place" argument again."
 * "We dont need to keep carbon copies of Evowiki policy pages to cannibalize some of their policies." Would anyone see them otherwise?
 * "And nobody is claiming we made up the articles wholesale, being able to find out how the parts of the evowiki articles thath aven't been RWified yet were written doesn't actually tell me anything about the subject besides it "promises" it was written accurately and truthfully" (A) the page in question says the opposite (B) that's not why I support having the EW articles
 * Excuse me while i port over the various USSR and North Korean constitution/governing documents/governmental orders to help "explain" just WHY those countries failed/are failing. Rationalwiki? more like documentwiki. But I won't actually tell you why, you'll have to divine it by reading them, as per earlier, we don't need to improve our actual pages on the subject, we put their policies here instead!" 19:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would respond but you didn't make any points for me to respond to. Or how what i suggested i do at the end is any different from what you're doing now. If the policy pages at evowiki directly improve my ability to understand evowiki, regardless of having any commentary on them, then doing the same for a failed country will do the same right? Whats the difference?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Besides the middle, but it was largely lost in you just copy pasting what i said back. "Would anyone see them otherwise? If there's any evowiki policies we should put in RW, suggest them. Don't nebulously maintain the policy pages incase in the future we decide we want some of them. That's a shit reason to keep them. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe because failed states aren't wikis and aren't quite as relevant to maintaining a successful wiki? 19:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But they are relevant to our mission, which is to document Authoritarianism. The soviet union was authoritarian, and a commentaryless, plain text copy of it's constitution will clearly improve our coverage of the soviet union and soviet style communism. What's the difference? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)