RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Hans Eysenck

Hans Eysenck | Result: Keep

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) One sentence stub about somebody who wrote an anti-Freud book. So bloody what? Spud (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Badly-formatted, tangential to a mission-related topic, currently mostly an irrelevant bibliography and the creator is on notice for some potentially questionable edits elsewhere. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) An article could be written on his racialism. This isn't that. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Kill it. --Castaigne (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Shoot to thrill kill--Arisboch (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Its more than one sentence now. He wrote about the paranormal, something that rationalwiki might consider connected to science or pseudoscience and rationalism. Freud is the subject of an article. Having an article on Eysenck gives the other side. --PBustion87 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Once you finish barfing at the formatting, the content is actually missional. It's relevant to psychology, racialism, and paranormal. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) His book on the paranormal makes him missional. Bicycle  wheel silverbrain.png 20:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Seems on-mission Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) If the focus is at least as much on Eysenck's research into parapsychology and astrology as on his criticism of Freud(ianism) (seriously, who hasn't jumped on that bandwagon?), I'd say the article is definitely on mission. Keep and see what happens. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) It's been much improved since the AfD was opened, but it's still rather slight. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah, but seriously, it's been only 25 hours since its creation and since it may still develop into something (a bit more) on mission, I think the extermination crew should give it a rest. Really, how many of RW's current articles would have survived if final evaluation had taken place within the first day or two of their initial creation? ScepticWombat (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Removed my "delete" vote. The page is improved, though it would be good to know if this guy influenced more prominent paranormal chasers or "scientific racists". If he did, that would elevate his importance, IMO.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)