RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Joel Brind

Joel Brind | Result: Keep

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) Needs more content. 01:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Needs more content? So write more content. Avida Dollarsher again 12:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not DiamondDisc1's obligation to expand an article he tagged for deletion. If an article conveys so little information that it might as well be a red link, then that's grounds for deletion. Having bland single-sentence articles does not make our wiki look good, and it's better to rework from scratch than have the article remain. Stubs are not inherently bad; it's when stubs are effortless, have no potential to be expanded (i.e. no resources), and do not inform. Having a stub article be composed of a few paragraphs, but well sourced statements is acceptable. 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * His complaint was that it was too short, and therefore, needs to be lengthened, and therefore, ought to be kept. So why does he want it deleted? Avida Dollarsher again 14:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm with . If it's a stub that needs expansion, then expand it! If we were to just delete every little stub because they're stubs, then we may as well delete every last article in the "stubs" category.  21:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm not sure what this person's role is on abortion and breast cancer pseudoscience, but this person's publication has elicited a response by Journal of the National Cancer Institute, so it seems significant enough for that organization to publish it. I'm not sure how editorials work for that journal, if it reflects the journal's views, however. Nevertheless, this person did receive mainstream press attention, which should be worthy enough. This article, the bulk being about anti-abortion pseudoscience, is categorized strangely, as I feel it's more fit to use abortion rather than creationism. But in the end, there is no article on that sort of pseudoscience, so I was going to support merge/redirect, but that's if the article exists, and I'm not talking about Evidence linking abortion to breast cancer. Surprisingly, no article exists, and we don't even have much of a discussion of abortion/breast cancer pseudoscience in the parent abortion article! 21:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) There's definitely a lot of meat left on the bone here. Deleting this one is the wrong call. 22:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) How can we expand this article, assuming that's possible? How significant is this person? We should not waste time with nobodies. Just because someone wrote something does not mean they deserve attention. Nerd (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can anyone explore a little beyond our subsection of "Lecturing"? If the guy has been invited to write stuff for mainstream newspapers and appear on some TV, surely we can get a bit more information on him? The citation provided, unfortunately, is a broken link. 23:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)