RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Women's Human Rights Campaign

Women's Human Rights Campaign | Result: Deleted

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) Has a grand total of 17,000 followers worldwide and Twitter followers numbering in the lower quadruple digits; obscure groups as scummy as these degenerates don't even deserve the free clout from an RW article. Also, 98% of this was made by an insufferable, overly-passionate, holier-than-thou editor who has a very shitty track record when it comes to editing. -- Goatspeed. 18:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Full of misinformation on specific living people that we’ve already deleted a lot of other articles over, not worth saving. Christopher (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you're reading this, I warn you that if you keep trying this shit when it comes to living persons without any proof, you could be facing a topic ban from anything that's TERF-related. -- Goatspeed. 19:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think she’s made a single edit that wasn’t TERF-related, and it looks like she’s left the site of her own accord anyway after she saw all of her articles being deleted. Christopher (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Slightly missional, but too low-quality to keep. 主要行事月 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) If they are worth covering, probably the safest and most efficient course of action would be to start from scratch. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  22:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Not good. 22:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Aside from notability issues, author has demonstrated a clear tendency towards hyperbole that sometimes tips over into outright misrepresentation of source materials. There's also a deeply weird Godwin / No True Scotsman thing running through much of the article, as though TERFs can be magicked out of left-wing feminist existence by sheer weight of polemic. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Per HBC. While TERFs may share views with reactionaries, the root cause of those views is a (flawed) form of feminism. 01:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 05:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep
Very strong keep. It is a very good article, enough to get a bronze or even silver, and 17,000 followers is a lot. This article should be kept. Gale5050 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, I hate to break it to you, but that's nothing by today's standards. Also, I fail to see how this is even close to "very good", let alone worthy of a bronze or silver. -- Goatspeed. 20:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 17,000 kinda is. Besides, there is no limit to how many articles we can have, as long as they are good. This one is, it has a lot of length and filling content. Gale5050 (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Nvm. Moving to neutral. Gale5050 (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * Why are we AFD'ing all of these articles that are sometimes actually good? Gale5050 (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The author has been writing libellous BLPs on people connected to this organisation (a common theme is massively overstating that connection) for months without anyone noticing, we’re now in the process of cleaning up her mess. The article may look good because it’a got a high word count, but it’s very inaccurate. It’s understandable that you’d be confused as that hasn’t been made very clear in this afd, discussion of the issue has happened in a lot of different places so it’s hard to get the full story. Christopher (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that. However I always believe in "assess it by the content and not by the contributor". Gale5050 (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The content is inaccurate and borderline libellous. Christopher (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I am neutral. Gale5050 (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)