RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Mohandas Gandhi

==Mohandas Gandhi | Result: By a very narrow margin, the vote is for delete. If anybody would like to create a better article about Gandhi in the future, that would be great.==


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) the bulk of this article concern claims and opinions of dubious merit that should merely be little more than a footnote to anything about Gandhi, supported by substandard sources that are little more than unsubstantiated opinion themselves, all used to make the spurious claim that Gandhi is responsible for all that is wrong with india today, up to and including nuclear war AMassiveGay (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * wouldn't suggest deletion if not for the fact I am not up to task of fixing its faults (its all faults - there is nothing worth saving), no one seems interested in fixing it, and it is so egregiously bad that it is damaging to rw by simply existingAMassiveGay (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ok when can I delete this shit? (how do I go about doing that?)AMassiveGay (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd wait four more days. Then it will have been ten days since you nominated it for deletion. Spud (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Grudgingly voting delete. Though Gandhi had multiple crank views, this article does a disservice to conveying them in its current rambling state. 16:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) It’s like somebody watched a crappy “Gandhi wasn’t so perfect!!!” YouTube video and decided to regurgitate it as an article. The Hitchins quote is dumb and way too long. 18:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Hitchens quote should probably go, or at least be recast into an analysis of Hitchens' claims. It's close to a copyright violation (posting something without comment is not generally considered fair use). --Annanoon (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * there is nothing to analyse. his claims are unadulterated bullshit AMassiveGay (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) It doesn't seem that bad. There is good stuff in it that should be kept. The man is too important to not have an article on. I think AMG is being too pessimistic.Summa Atheologica (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * are you joking? have you even looked at it? it is noting short of an embarrassment. it goes out its way to malign the man, making unsubstantiated assertions and bullshit conclusions supported by sub par sources which are no more than unsubstantiated opinions themselves, blames Gandhi for all the rape that happens in india today, accuses him of being a Nazi sympathiser, and I am not joking when I say it blames him for literal nuclear war. it dos all this with no context for any of the crank opinions he might hold, no information on why he is such an important figure, while at the same time with no evidence whatsoever denying he played any useful in indian independence. whats more its bookended by a bullshit quote from hitchens, which is laughably ironic considering what follows, and an even longer offensively spurious quote, again from hitchens, accusing Gandhi of literally all of indias ills today, providing no evidence and displaying complete and wilful ignorance of the subject. so please tell me - whats good about this appalling article? how am I being pessimistic? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Gandhi was a vastly important figure, and also on some subjects very eccentric, perhaps a crank. Hence he seems totally missional. And there's no requirement for a RW article to be balanced, even on Gandhi. --Annanoon (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * no require to be balanced, but we do need to be accurate. there is no requirement for absolute dogshit either which is what we have. he is a vastly important figure which is why I propose delete. nothing is better than this abortion. i'll tell you now if we don't delete it, I will gut it of the offending parts leaving less than a stub. that will be infinitely more informative than this shite. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine. You can definitely gut it.Summa Atheologica (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * i'm not sure you've quite grasped the point there. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there actual specific things in the article that you believe to be false? What areas of content do you believe should be covered, bearing in mind this is RW not an encyclopedia or hagiography? It's easy to swear and insult people, but you don't seem to have proved anything at all yet. --Annanoon (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * AMG explained his viewpoint on the article's talkpage. I personally found his arguments persuasive. 14:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)