RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Kane

Jonathan Kane | Result: ?

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) I recreated this article from a redirect. I now believe it is best to delete the article as Kane is not notable for anything apart from co-authoring a single book on anti-creationism, there is also the issue of some Wiki drama involving Kane and Smith that everyone here is fed up with reading. The Wiki/Wars drama is not relevant to RationalWiki. It's obvious to me that Jonathan Kane is the pseudonym Shuichi Tezuka who has written for Quillette and other right-wing magazines as there are a lot of give away clues but Kane denies this and doesn't want to be linked with other identities. As there are no other references linking him to such accounts then he probably should be cited. He's likely also the blocked Wikipedia user Gardenofaleph. I agree that there are no other sources identifying him as these other names so it would be our own research to try and link him to these other online pseudonyms. As far as I know the only other name he admits openly to using the blocked Wikipedia account Captain Occam but the Wiki drama is irrelevant to RationalWiki. The Emily Willoughby article should be kept but I believe this one should be deleted and redirected back into the Willoughby article. Johns (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) The article is mostly fine other than the creationism stuff, it should not be deleted and we should not be bullied into deleting or whitewashing it. Strong Keep. A somebody. (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) I concur with A. somebody. Also Kane is notable to some extent for his Quillette work and overall involvement with racialist pseudoscience. My vote is a tentative "keep." Carthage (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) Just a note that Mikey has already tried socking this up. I am willing to protect this AfD if the socking continues, as I actually want this to be a productive discussion and not the sockfest that these AfDs inevitably turn into.
 * As for the case itself, I am mostly ambivalent but it shouldn't be deleted just because it attracts trolls; Mikey will be here regardless of whether this stays or not because he has no life and he should really be disregarded in discussions like this. Regardless, this article (and the similar Emily Willoughby one) rely a bit to much on Wikipedia drama and other forum posts for my liking, and they don't seem to have much of a public presence beyond that. Perhaps the Emily Willoughby article can be merged into this one and it can be streamlined, but I'm not the biggest fan of the article in this state. Plutocow (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I am also ambivalent about this article, but am confident that the RW community can make it better. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm ambivalent too. We don't bow to trolls and we don't delete articles just because their subjects don't like them. But this person just seems to me to be an ex-racist and ex-creationist who isn't really notable. (He isn't regularly on TV or radio. He isn't a YouTuber with millions of subscribers. He doesn't have a weekly newspaper column. He isn't even a bestselling author. He doesn't have much of a platform to promote good or evil.) And I really don't want to give the subject the opportunity to turn his article into a puff piece for self promotion. Spud (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * He is not an 'ex-racist' he is a current racist. A somebody. (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)