RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Lauren Chen

Lauren Chen | Result: Keep

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) I'm gonna go out on a limb here and state there's basically nothing here to critique. So she's mildly conservative and has an Internet presence? That's hardly justification for an article. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is someone who associates with Richard Spencer really "mildly conservative"? If she was properly challenging him then maybe, but otherwise she'd seem to be pretty seriously conservative. It needs more info on her beliefs. --Annanoon (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with the above. Seems like she's just one of the dime-a-dozen YouTube conservatives with a mild but hardly influential following. Fuzikami (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite her growing influence on Twitter and YouTube, inviting alt-righters to her channel, and being a CRTV host? TheEOE (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) She's a very moderate conservative and clearly NOT far-right! Therefore, the point of this article doesn't stand. Therefore, it should be removed.TaraElla (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. You just want to delete the article because it got her wrong about her being far-right and not at least fix it or make some kind of contribution to add on to it?
 * 2. The article never claimed that she was far right, but "promotes far right talking points". Someone can mistake that based on her apologetics and sympathy for some of the alt-right and alt-lite. TheEOE (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) What said. Nerd (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) What said. Nerd (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Aside from being one of Canada's worst exports, she's a far-right activist smuggling white nationalist talking points into the mainstream. She uses statistical manipulation and distortion of facts in order to push a hard-right ideological agenda. Remember her whole thing about "black on black crime"? Keep the post up. The more exposure, the better. (Her boss is Gavin McInnes, for god's sake!)
 * 2) I wouldn't call her far-right (moreso just conservative) but her following is fairly large - over 300 000 subscribers, which is in the same ballpark as many other Internet personalities we have articles for. She is also connected to many prominent alt-right or alt-lite figures (Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Lauren Southern). The article does need to be expanded to explain in detail what is irrational about her beliefs, but it's worth having. 24.235.177.51 (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) What said. Also, if we're going to delete Lauren Chen, then might as well delete Hunter Avallone, like I requested before. TheEOE (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep. Still missional. Fuck notability.--Don Juan (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Currently unlisted crazy: global warming denialist, though, like all flavors of denialists, hates being called a denialist, and constantly laments that her particular unsubstantiated "middle ground" is also called denialism, where she says "oh 2 degrees between paris accords targets for 2100 and status quo is 'imperceptible'". She even plays a poisoning the well game in the main article she posits that shit position "Oh I'll be called denialist for this", like it's not arbitrarily rejecting fuck-tons of evidence and research that's well publicized.  No one with tens of thousands of followers pitching that flavor of pseudoscience should be skipped.  She also definetly pitches the "black people are just inferior and oppression doesn't exist" thing pretty hard.  Which is hardcore race psuedoscience, but bundled in an "anti-sjw" flavored shell where she's objecting to invented strawmen, instead of presenting the (disgustingly racist) positive case that underlies that bullshit.  This is not an article that should be deleted.  This is an article that should be expanded.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) We don't let global warmig deniers off easily. 23:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) She passes herself as a common-sense libertarian, although there are some very unliberal streaks about her. To discredit feminism & racial justice she advances the usual anti-PC tropes & "boohoo, you're not oppressed"-talking-points. And since she doesn't come off as too strident & hateful, a non-informed or neutral observer might fall for her faux-common-sense-advocacy. Debunk her (& Dave Rubin's) fake centrism all the way, I say. EauDeCologne (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)