RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Con artist

Con artist | Result: Redirected

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Keep

 * 1) Arguments about missionality don't quite ring true to me. Historical con artistry frequently involved both pseudoscience and crankery.  There's no reason that specific people are crucial to the on-mission component.  In fact, I'd say they're secondary at best.  A quiet stub isn't a problem.  Ikanreed (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I would rename the page to con artistry or better yet, confidence game and keep it. A compendium of some of the classic scams and how they're updated for the times, together with a discussion of the psychology involved, strikes me as something fairly obviously missional.  This is true even if we can't have a list of con artists any more. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, a move would be crucial. The activity is far more relevant than the people, per my previous argument.  Ikanreed (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I think it's missional. A title change would probably be good though - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I'll support a historical history of con artists. Confidence game seems appropriate. 22:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) I would keep and populate with examples of convicted con artists such as Bernie Madoff, Ponzi, Billie Sol Estes, etc. Hclodge (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Many astrologers", "psychics", and woo-peddlers are con artists (not all, though, some are simply delusional). Indeed, probably a large percentage of woo exists simply because some con artist wanted to make a buck somewhere... So it seems on-mission to me.  Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete

 * 1) This article no longer lists named examples and is a useless stub. Nutty states it should not be expanded with named examples. There is no point in keeping a stub that has non-missionality. Castaigne (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Although I think it is on-mission, it's also a libel-attractor, particularly with the less-than-neutral sounding title of "con artist". MarmotHead (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Is just a dictionary definition of a phrase everyone already knows. Looks like CorruptUser added some more content. Still pretty short and not really a necessary article to have, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just redirect to Category:Scams or delete. Anyone who doesn't know what a con artist is, can just use a dictionary. 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I merged with Charlatan. Feel free to delete!  CorruptUser (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) I vote we restore all the people that were removed from the page, for content purposes, but replace all the actual names with Nutty, for libel purposes. Trick (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to know that Trent and the RMF getting sued is funny to you. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And I'm just as glad that it's a topic that we can resolve in a caustic and overall irresolute manner. Trick (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we not do this, Trick? I don't think it's helping.  Ikanreed (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Since the missionality paradox involved here is one not of my authority to resolve, I am ambivalent. --Madman (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
 * 2) I'm not sure why we can't just open the example section with a note saying not to add any living persons and then fill it with dead con artists.--TiaC (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibility of defamation suits from living descendents. Although you might want to check with Nutty to make sure. --Castaigne (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not and never have been the RMF's lawyer. Don't check with me. Try making a good decision on your own. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't really want me to do that. My "good decision" will always be "Whatever is the most certain course."...and certainty is best established by permanent deletion. --Castaigne (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Merge it with Charlatans? CorruptUser (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Ok, I prepared it a bit more, and I think it can be added to Charlatans.  Anyone know when the results of the vote are? Also, thanks Ikan, added your link. CorruptUser (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just merge it. The consensus is that this article as is isn't useful but that people want historical examples, which "Chartalans" can provide quite well. 18:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes! Merge with Charlatan. Spud (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) A great source popped up quite recently: How Scams Worked In The 1800s Ikanreed (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)