RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Jack Parsons

Jack Parsons | Result: keep

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Keep

 * 1) I haven't read the article, so I can't speak as to its quality, but I'm familiar with the subject, and he definitely had some crank ideas. Also, he had ties to Aleister Crowley and to L. Ron Hubbard pre-Scientology.  In fact, he was even scammed by Hubbard, and tried to summon a hurricane as revenge...-- "Shut up, Brx." 12:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Not a very good or readable article at the moment, but fairly obviously missional. . - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Crappy, but I'd say keep - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) It needs serious reworking; like sources and shorter sentences, but a valid article never the less. It's particularly given how many occultists associated with him have articles on RatWiki. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Carry on, then&mdash; I've changed my opinion from "delete" to "goat." After all, the man did notably invent the JATO bottle. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, let's keep him, he sounds fun! I'm definitely reading the works cited. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete

 * 1) I'm not really the one that nominated it this time. I just replaced the old delete template with the new one. I'm more in the goat category on this one. Spud (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Would definitely be on-mission if he were around today... but he isn't. While's a well-known name within (history of) occultism - itself a much lower-profile subculture than it was - he's just "who?" outside it. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 13:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, so if somebody dies, we should delete their article? I don't understand-- "Shut up, Brx." 16:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it means that a minor figure died before the internet was even invented isn't really worth our attention. Are you being an idiot on purpose? If so, sod off back to ED. If not, sod off anyway. Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 21:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Anecdotal, poorly explained & poorly cited. 19:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm sure theres a mission for this, but unless somebody else is gonna write it i don't see it being worth an article-- Mie kal  19:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Goat
How much of what the article says is factual? 21:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Yes it's OR; but you also know that's the most logical explanation and you will never find a source connecting all the dots. I trust you.)" would lead me to think it isn't.-- Mie kal  21:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence why I asked. Some of the folks posting on this page said they're familiar with the subject matter.  22:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

(Changed my mind from "delete" to "goat" 00:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)) The style is tough to read, asking too much of the reader's willingness to believe what is asserted in sentences elongated with participial phrases, for which I confess some fondness. Better burn it to the ground, leaving the opportunity for a fresh start, in case someone should ever want to spend effort writing a RW article on this peripheral figure, who was perhaps an example of engineer woo. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)