RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Stephenie Meyer

Stephenie Meyer | Result: Keep

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) Four people on the talk page, myself included, have argued that the article is non-missional. It may be universally agreed that Twilight is badly written, but bad writing, by itself, is not a crime against rationality, and the article as written doesn't even critically examine Twilight. Its current content can be reduced to "Boo." Half of it isn't even about Meyer but rather derivative works. Linneris (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't exactly go by that especially because one of them,, got banned for pi months and nearly permabanned after that comment. Andrew5 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem! Though I admit I don't have particularly strong feelings on this issue. - Linneris (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not the first time Andrew5 is acting annoying and nerve-grindingly officious. There's a reason this user is still sysoprevoked. 18:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) GeeJayK (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) It falls under point 4 of the mission, and given the fall of Roe v. Wade Twilight's anti-abortion message is more relevant than ever to cover. It is in desperate need of a cleanup, but there are a lot of articles I could say that about. Plutocow (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) It's not often I agree with Plutocow on deletion discussions, but for once they raise a good message. Andrew5 (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I like this article. 21:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) -Flandres (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) What Plutocow said. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Plutocow. That being said, the article should use a rewrite. It used to delve into how "weird" it is for Meyer to write essentially a self-insert in a wish fulfillment fantasy but that's not particularly unusual when you're writing works of fiction. 18:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)