RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/RationalWiki:Webshites/Politics

RationalWiki:Webshites/Politics | Result: Not killed with fire (but badly needs trimming)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) The target of this AFD is a bit arbitrary, in that the problems I list here could be applied to any of the Webshites pages, but this is admittedly the one that has caused the most problems. Now, I don't think these articles are a bad idea in theory. A list of bad sources could be useful, and Wikipedia has their list of which serves a similar purpose. Problem is, with Wikipedia there are standards and procedures to get a website on that list, and those don't really exist here. The Webshites articles are mostly edited by a handful of devoted users, with little oversight from the larger community (have you checked everything that is listed here?). This is a problem, especially considering how the articles are virtually unsourced, which can easily get us into BLP problems. Furthermore, there are no standards: for instance, is the politics article only for people who primarily talk about politics or do people who just have a couple of bad takes that they maybe expressed once or twice belong here? Do people belong here solely for pushing misinformation, or can people also be placed here for asshole behavior? Does a person belong here if most of their views are reasonable but they have a couple of blind spots? Should people have a minimum following to be listed here? It's not helped that people were often added to the lists following internet drama. Despite some attempts at cleanup, the problems with this article have never gone away, and the lack of sourcing is a huge issue that has never gone away. Overall, these pages should be cleared until a better process and standards can be made for determining who belongs on the list. Plutocow (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) This page is massive, can do with a bit of do-over. However, I see some names there that definitely warrant an article, like Liberty Hangout. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what the to do list is for? —cosmikdebris talk stalk 13:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Plutocow is right that an occasional cleanup/purge does not address the underlying issue. Unless the page is carefully maintained, it will deteriorate back to poor quality and remain that way most of the time, as it has in the past. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  17:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave solutions on how to address that in my keep vote. Andrew5 (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have no problem keeping it if standards and a process were in place. As I see it, if we delete it, either we subsequently develop no such system, and keep it gone, or develop a system, in which case resurrecting the page is trivial. If we keep the page, either we develop a system, in which case there is no difference, or we don’t, in which case we retain a perennially low quality page, and I see no reason to prefer that. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  22:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I thought about doing this myself at least a couple of times. Right now it looks like a "what I don't like" list. GeeJayK (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) ✻ sigh ✻ Several years ago I split the gigantic webshites page into the "portal" and sub-pages as it exists now. I was in favor of deleting the whole mess then because I don't think it provides any use to the community to present what is basically a giant bookmarks list. I don't think we have enough concerned users to properly curate this mess, and proposals for implementing some kind of a standards/process/workflow for adding and/or reviewing entries is rather laughable. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 13:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with, if a truly interesting site shows up that could warrant a RW article, it belongs at the to-do list. Attempts to establish processes for reviewing new additions look doomed for failure, in my opinion because 1) it would make editing mainspace easier than editing the website directories and 2) it requires active editors that care enough about this to review the new additions, of which I doubt there are many. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) all the webshite lists should go. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Keep, but do a massive purging of it. Vee (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep, but purge. Like Wikipedia, we should have a process for discussing articles here. Andrew5 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep, but take out the hedge clippers and go to town. 03:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep, probably check what sites are still active & what sites aren't + maybe adding some new ones (if possible). Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Trimming out the fat is fine eough. 17:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep, but agree we should do an audit of the sites to see which ones are ded/inactive/rarely visited. EDIT: Hell, I might make it a personal project if this page is confirmed keep. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep, and yeah, we should check which are active, which are inactive, and which are dead. "Dead" in my eyes means account/site's down with no replacement. Not sure about what inactive would be, but it probably would be wise to account for how many contributors there are. For example, if a news site went a month without posting an article, I'd probably consider it inactive. Politics in this day and age goes by quick, and I'd expect a whole team of people to be able to catch up. But if a single person running a YouTube channel went a month without posting a video, I'd be inclined to think they were just too busy. It might also be better to consider rate of content rather than the age of the most recent contribution. DietMondrian (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Keep, if we get rid of this page, we might as well remove every other Webshite list. And we should not do that.Daemonspudguy (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Goat

 * I'm not eligible to vote yet, but while I do concur with Plutocow's summation of the situation, I'm on the fence about completely deleting it. It has the potential to be a valid source for sure, but there's also the potential for legal troubles down the road. Vee (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no need to have eligible user to vote in AfD. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. Vee (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there no respect for RatWiki's HONORABLE TRADITIONS nowadays? smh. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought making a troll account on CP was the only tradition? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Too bad CP restricted account creation. Vee (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm wrong, but who's going to clean this up? I feel like within six months we will have this discussion again. GeeJayK (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally would be skeptical of my abilities to clean it up. However, I trust 's abilities. Andrew5 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It would likely involve multiple editors given that there are around 390 sites on the list. The bulk of it is in "Conservatives, right-wing, "cultural libertarians", "classical liberals", centrists™, and reactionaries", which makes sense given it's the broadest category. That being said, since it's all already arranged in alphabetical order, it'd be easy to divvy up the work. Maybe one person can claim, say, #-B, another U-W, or whatever. "Other" and "Literal government propaganda" are short enough that one person could handle them in one sitting. DietMondrian (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a more in depth perusal by those of us with nothing better to do would help? I personally don't think I can even vote, but I unilaterally have decided my opinion is relevant. LeGrandePumbloom (talk) 02:37, 03 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just over three weeks since the start of the vote, and it's 5-8 favoring Keep. Should we resolve the vote? I'm planning to start commenting out sites that are at least defunct/broken. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not just delete the sites instead of commenting them out? 00:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, there's a historical record that anyone can look at to see what was removed, isn't there. Deleting entries it is then. (Sorry, it's Friday night, my brain's already left for the weekend xP) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)