RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Blackpill

==Blackpill | Result: It's gone and no one will miss it; redirected to the appropriate Manosphere glossary entry as per voter request that doesn't seem too controversial==


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) This idea doesn’t deserve more than a paragraph in another article, which it already has. You’ll notice the definition used in blackpill and in the glossary are completely different, the article actually has nothing to do with the concept as most people (amongst those who’ve heard of it) define it. you were the one who added the template so I’m guessing you’ll want to vote (usually you’d be the one to create the page),  you wanted a ping when this was up. Christopher (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I assure you, spending eleven minutes not getting the "preload debate" thing has not changed my mind about how pointless this article is. Let me preempt the "merge" argument I can foresee by pointing out we already have a definition on this, at the manosphere glossary.-Flandres (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm not sure it's missional, but due to the methodological flaws (the author wrote it based on his experience and perception over the subject, literally blog tier) the current status of the article is beyond salvation. GeeJayK (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) This seems basically to be some guff that one user made up. Avida Dollarsher again 19:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Remnant guff from Neiltyson1fans whitewashing of our incel page. 20:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page history, there was no article to whitewash. He wrote the whole thing. I wonder if we should just revert to a redirect to manosphere glossary, we should definitely delete his other articles (I think sexual revolution caused incels hypothesis is the only other one).Christopher (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Neiltyson1fan was insistent that we kept "Blackpill" as the article where the common parlance definition of incel is explained/maintained. From my understanding, he wrote it himself out of a counterjerk on Wikipedia AfDing an article about the "academic" definition of incels. Either way, it should be pruned since there's nothing to even salvage for our article on incels. 22:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also yes, please redirect this page once the deletion vote passes. I don't think you'd get objections to that. The other page I haven't had the time to read yet, I'll get back to you on that. 22:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Bad article. 20:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Topic is already covered in the manosphere glossary page. -- Goatspeed. 02:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

 * 1) Make it its own section on incel, I don't believe it deserves to be its own article. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There’s nothing in the article that would fit in a “blackpill” section on incel, if you want to make one you should instead look at manosphere glossary. Christopher (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is something to scavenge from the article, its rebuttals of extreme mysoginy per section "Why the theory is wrong" more precisely. Yes, it could be merged with the manosphere glossary, I have no issue with that idea either way, however, I think the rebuttal should be re-written and properly merged into either the incel article or the manosphere article. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion even this section cannot be saved. We don't even know what these guys believe, only what NTF told us. GeeJayK (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Merge and redirect to incel or manosphere glossary. Worthy of some discussion on our Incel page - this is a defining philosophy held by majority of incels. The author saw the two as separate; thus this article is a whitewash of incel beliefs, but is not a whitewash of blackpill beliefs. It should be reframed such that incel = blackpill. We can probably also add some to manosphere glossary. Kauri0.o (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)