RationalWiki:Articles for deletion

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
There are 4 pages marked for deletion:
For the far-right German political party known by the abbreviation AfD, see Alternative für Deutschland.

Some articles on RationalWiki are ripe for plucking and deletion. If you think an article fits this description (and there is no page that it could be better merged with), here are the steps to take to put it on this page:

  1. Add {{Article for deletion}} or {{Article for deletion|Reason}} to the top of the page you think needs deletion.
  2. Press the save button to get the rest of the instructions to populate.
  3. The second line of instructions that appear below the deletion template allow for pre-populating a discussion, click that button, replace the word "Reason" with your reasoning for wanting to delete the article.
  4. Finally add {{RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/ReplaceMeWithTheArticleName}} to top of this list. Don't forget to change the ReplaceMeWithTheArticleName to the proper article name from step 3.

Please notify the creator/main editor(s) on their talkpage using {{afdnotice|(Replace with exact article name '''including namespace''')|(Replace with AFD rationale)}}, particularly if it's new and the users are active.

Then wait a while and see what the mob thinks, unless there's an actual reason it needs to be taken out and shot quickly (e.g. a severely problematic/inaccurate living person's biography).

If the article you are attempting to create an AfD page for has had an AfD before, move the old AfD to a new name (usual standard suggests putting the year of the old AfD after the name, but we have no real policy for this, just make sure someone can find it later) and update the relevant archive before making the AfD.

If you are attempting to merge the article with another, PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS PAGE. That belongs at RationalWiki:Duplicate articles.

Also, if you think an article is substandard but still potentially on-mission, remember that a move to Draft: space might be sufficient.

And don't forget to subscribe. This will allow you to see when a new article for deletion is added.

To archive:

  1. Edit the AFD page to change the result from "?" to "deleted" or "kept" or whatever.
  2. Go to RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Log and remove the {{RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Article}}.
  3. Go to the 2021 archives and add {{RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Article}} at the top of the stack.

After deleting, add Category:Talk pages for deleted articles to the talk page if it has one. (The exception is deleted pages that were not main space articles, for which there's other categories to add to any talk pages instead.)

Critics of the historicity of Jesus | Result: ?[edit]

Critics of the historicity of Jesus (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)


  1. This is a long list of Wikipedia articles that does not advance our mission. Leaving it up just invites potential inaccuracy if not outright trolling Hastur! (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. 15 times. I asked user Dbz at least 15 times on the talk page why is this listicle missional. He didn't answer me. Granted, Bongolian gave an answer but I personally found it unconvincing. Most of the names are a bunch of utterly, literal nobodies; many of them are so irrelevant they don't even have an article on Wikipedia. Even among those with a Wikipedia article there are many of them who aren't even historians or whatever. Article lists lawyers, "independent scholars", bloggers, journalists, linguists, etc. Sources include motherfucking Medium (although a considerable part of the names don't even have a source). Also, the very definition of a "critic of the historicity of Jesus" is iffy. For instance, it includes authors that belive that "Despite many other flaws, the gospels support a rounded figure and a historical Jesus certainly existed". Guess we can add almost every single intelectual (even most Christian historians and intelectuals) since the XIX century then? Maybe Dbz's theory ain't fringe after all! This happens to be one of our worst listicles. And that's quite a lot. The fact that not even the author knows why the article is missional is just the icing of the cake. GeeJayK (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Long, rambling, confusing, and a listicle. I hate it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


  1. This article/listicle is related to the "Question of the historicity of Jesus" which is a rambling, confusing topic indeed, because many Christ devotees are "Biblical Scholars" who are incapable of addressing this topic in a rational manner. Also this article/listicle is useful for presenting how Wikipedia goes off the rails and falls flat on its face and then is unable to "right the ship" when the modern consensus is malformed and thus no longer citable as reliable. Something Wikipedia never expected to ever occur and thus is unable to deal with. RW should be presenting how and why this academic train-wreck is occurring and how and why Wikipedia is failing. --Dbz (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


  1. essayspace it. -- Techpriest (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. I feel bad deleting something someone took a gigantanormous amount of time editing. Either Essayspace or be it its own article under "Rationalwiki:Webshites" since it could work well there. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 11:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. I vote to essayspace it, just because of the fact that I don't want someone's work to completely go away. DELETE ANY REDIRECTS FROM MAINSPACE. Andrew5 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


  • If this gets deleted, @Dbz should consider putting it up in Essayspace. Bongolian (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Xenogender | Result: ?[edit]

Xenogender (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has been requested to be deleted before. See here, here, and here for those discussions.


  1. It's been over six months and the article hasn't improved at all. Yes, a couple of the more explicitly transmedicalist sources were removed, but none of the arguments or content in the article has fundamentally changed. Formerly just a redirect to a section of the Nonbinary article as a result of a previous AFD, one person with a transmedicalist agenda recreated this article. No, my problem is not with the concept of having a Xenogender article. If we had an article on the Nation of Islam that was composed of white supremicist talking points, or even an article on Blaire White that was composed of TERF talking points, nobody would accept that, but because this article is composed of transmedicalism, which is bigotry directed primarily towards nonbinary people, a lot more of you are willing to let that slide. Currently, the article contains a section that is very coddling towards autistic people and promotes gender not being a social construct, which is a TERF talking point, contains a section "Critical theory woo" which does not even try to make an argument, bizarrely tries to equate Xenogender people to TERFs (which is a bad comparison even if you don't recognize them, since you are comparing outright bigots to people who just believe in something bizarre but not hateful), and suggests that the only valid trans people are ones with brain scans that "prove" they are trans (that was less apparent due to an edit after the last AFD, but the implication is still there). And before the inevitable "Why don't you improve the article instead of deleting it", the problem is you can't improve the article without at the very least removing large sections of "content", something I tried to do earlier but was shot down. I would be okay with just redirecting it to the section in Nonbinary (which was the case for five years prior to June 2020) and do some expansion of said section but the article as it stands should just burn. Plutocow (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. Horrid, not worth keeping. Perhaps do a WP:TNT and re-write the whole article from scratch, but as it stands this article is humiliating. Senioritas (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    I wouldn't oppose a WP:TNT, but the problem is, no one may create a new article. I only support it if there is a draft, ready to be published, once this is deleted. Andrew5 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. This article is not worth the effort of keeping it. The topic in question, so called “xenogender”: is so trivially pseudoscientific (the brainchild of Tumblr users ffs), that it shouldn’t merit the effort of a thorough sceptical analysis, all that is required is dismissal. In addition, this article is dispensable: it plays no significant role in supporting or contributing to our best articles. Moreover the majority of editors here, quite tellingly, have shown no interest in working on it—leave it on tumblr! LeucippusSapere aude 18:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    That is a very good point, but the goal is to still improve. Besides, right now I am trying to fix up Tim Eyman, so...Andrew5 (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. We don't need a page that demonizes a whole group of people.--April Chat? 01:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see this page as demonizing a group of people. The concept of xenogender enters into realm of alt-right trolling (e.g., Alt-right glossary#Ammosexual, RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive396#My new gender identity!) or pseudoscience at best ("plants, animals, space, fictional characters"). Bongolian (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    Good post! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


  1. As per the fact that it was kept twice in just the year of 2021. Comments from the last AFD said it was pretty missional, and, as not only said there but in many other AFDs, deletion is not the way to remove stubs. Expansion is how we remove stubs, although in this case, there are other reasons. I admit it has significant problems, but these can be fixed. Editors here, including me, need to spend more time actually fixing these articles, rather then just AFD'ing them. Me included. It is missional,and as such, expansion is the answer. As an aside, Plutocow has tried multiple times to delete it before, all of which have failed. I get that Plutocow says you can only improve it by removing content, which was shot down. Personally I do support removing content and fixing up the article, and urge others to do so so we can keep this on-mission article. Andrew5 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    I will also mention that every single time this happens, it appears to get very contentious and long winded. I think all of us here at RW should just calm down and not argue about everything about the article. This is clearly polarized, and it really shouldn't be. Andrew5 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    The problem isn't that it's a stub, the problem is that it's outright bigoted. Any missional content could be put at Nonbinary#Xenogender. Several articles have been deleted after previous votes to keep. If we have an article criticizing Transmedicalism, we shouldn't have an article written from a transmedicalist point of view. Plutocow (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    It is not a stub, just garbage. I read it full and couldn't believe this was written on RationalWiki of all places. This reads exactly like a long forgotten draft written by 1 person on Wikipedia. Senioritas (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. "It's déjà vu all over again." Bongolian (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. This is ridiculous. Christopher (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, it is ridiculous that we have people here who excuse blatant transmedicalism. Plutocow (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. Might need a WP:TNT, but I'd prefer this to only get a TNT if you have a replacement ready. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    That's what I'm trying to say. Andrew5 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    There's already a section in Non-binary gender#Xenogender, which was sufficient for five years before some transmedicalist decided to push their agenda. Plutocow (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    It's been having a nasty enough uptick in the past year to be semi-mainstream bullshit though. I already filtered out most of the truscum stuff the last time I saw a complaint get raised over this article. The problem is that I kinda lack the sources to meaningfully rip out the last bits. Maybe you could help with that? -- Techpriest (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oh, come on. This is getting stupid. Stop wasting our time. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    Good post! Andrew5 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. I cleaned up the article, so I'll vote "keep" for now. That is what you should have done Plutocow. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    Good post! Andrew5 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. smh Monet talk 08:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. -Hastur! (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  9. Oh come on. An article on its fourth deletion attempt is nearly always worth keeping.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 00:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)



  • To be clear, I went through most of this article. The only truscum thing in there that I didn't have a good way to get rid of at the time is the gender is a social construct stuff. The rest of it is not truscum anymore. It's by no means that significant a chunk of content, I simply couldn't find any better sources. I kinda do want that improved; Gender and how it is expressed is a mess between genetic factors and environmental factors. Xenogenders take at least the highly controversial assumption that it is entirely a social construct which is... well, it's slightly veering into woo territory. Just not fully sure how to work that in the article. The Ad Iram problem is real; mostly because this stuff tends to proliferate a lot on platforms with deliberately limited expression. It's not exactly truscum to point that out. Yes this article has problems, but they're fixable. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    Oh christ I'm having deja vu here, I said this last time too. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Techpriest But gender is a social construct. That's part of why truscum are wrong. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    The confusing thing about any "gender" discussion is that there are two elements that are often conflated a bit. There is a biological sex element that usually (not always, but most of the time) falls one way or the other. It's all about the chromosomes. Then there is "gender". Most definitions like in the WHO page here refer to gender entirely to the norms, behaviors, roles, and relationships associated with relationships and/or biological sex norms. Although "gender is a social construct" is a phrase one can derive from that, I'm not entirely comfortable with completely going in this direction, because some elements of the social gender are clearly influenced from biological based factors (like the spectrum of sexual attraction and even some of the biological differences of the biological sexes). Some aren't, of course. But the phrase kind of implies that everything is just driven by social custom, which is false. This has been noted in this article and others. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has come up with a "snappy catchphrase" to express the complete situation (it probably is hard to describe the complex reality in a single sentence). So not sure how to change the phrase. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • And there, that should be all truscum nonsense removed, while still keeping the consistent fact that it's woo in the article (unlike TCs attempts to remove that). Also added a small reality check that wile it's more than missional, a lot of our arguments here are about the ways teenagers misunderstand the world. If there's anything left, please page me, but I think that's everything. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    Page? I think you made a typo. Andrew5 (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Oxymoron | Result: ?[edit]

Oxymoron (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)


  1. Troll magnet as a fabulist sycophant who made themselves plenty of enemies here and outside named themselves after an extinct feline, so it kind of rhymes with this article's name. And the article itself is a stub for a decade, it has no redeeming quality whatsoever to keep. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 11:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    I should note that the trolls use it frequently as a redirect page, they redirect the page to user:Oxyaena, but if it was the only issue I wouldn't care that much, but the article itself is dross. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 11:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. I didn't know it was THAT bad, so imo. Kill it with Scorpio.gif Senioritas (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Being a troll magnet is non issue, since trolls can be stopped by protecting the page. This one is such a sad stub of a terrible article though that there's no point in keeping it. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 11:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    Only agreeing with the above by KC. Kntai (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    Withdrawing my Delete vote, given how the Keeps seem invested in making the article better. Kntai (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. Its not that much of a troll magnet, and even if it was it could be protected, but the article is very low quality. Christopher (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Christopher See below. Poor quality is not a reason for deletion, but expansion.Andrew5 (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    Per Christopher. If kept, please move to draftspace. Andrew5 (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Moving to keep per GrammarCommie below. Andrew5 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. Long-term stub, no references, and what’s there is low quality. If it wouldn’t be easier to start from scratch, it’s only because there’s so little to clear out. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 13:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. Even the pronunciation guide is wrong per Merriam-Webster[1] so it's very hard to see what's worth saving. It might seem on-mission but if so, what should it say? --Annanoon (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. Nothing worth keeping here. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. Article has no content. Hard to see it become anything other than an endless list of examples and in case it isn't known, I hate those. Maybe redirect any redlinks created by this deletion to articles like cognitive dissonance-Hastur! (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


  1. On mission, needs a touch up, being a troll magnet is not a reason for deletion. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. Come the fuck on. This assassination attempt is asinine. Blatantly on-mission, even if it's slightly stubby. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Being a troll magnet isn't grounds for deletion. Protection sure, but not deletion. Otherwise, we'd have deleted pages for, e.g., Biden or Hillary a long time ago. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. Article is bad, but not irredeemable. GeeJayK (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. Per GeeJayK, GrammarCommie. Short articles that are missional require expansion, deletion is not the answer. However, I am not opposed to a wp:WP:TNT method. (Delete and start from scratch). Andrew5 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. People ought to stop voting to delete pages that merely need expansion.--April Chat? 00:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. What April said.-Flandres (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. A stub but that's no reason to delete. Why not expand it instead.Scream!! (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  9. It should be protected to stop trolls though. Plutocow (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  10. Missional BeardOfZeus (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  11. Changed vote in hopes there will be expansion. Kntai (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)



  • As I'm ineligible for any votes at all but very ticked off at your shenanigans: for fuck's sake. Thanks for at least teaching me what said long-gone editor's username was referring to, but this is absolute garbage and sterno-level flaming. Go find another bridge. Kntai (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    No one’s ineligible to vote in AfDs. Christopher (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    Good to know. Kntai (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    It's not flaming, it's my second afd on here. You should review the page's fossil record. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 11:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    I see your point with this one. Kntai (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    Or, nah, the uselessness of the article for sure, but emegerding why it shouldn't be here in peak fabulist way, no. Kntai (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Just gonna add that I'm surprised nobody bothered to do some research to include a basic etymology section. Senioritas (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry but "vandals liked to redirect this article to Oxy's userpage" has to be the dumbest reason for an AfD I've ever read. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Never nominate articles for deletion due to vandalism or trolling. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    It's a stub too, and one that has been stuck being a stub for a decade. As I said: It is irredeemable. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 12:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    It's not necessarily irredeemable. I agree that it would be missional, but in its current shape it's an embarrassment to our mission. Even some of the examples provided are just bad. Needs a complete rewrite at least, and until someone's willing to make the effort, it needs to have everything after the second sentence (except maybe the "See Also" part, which has much better examples than the bread text) wiped and be turned into a draft. Or just nuked from orbit. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 13:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    @TransChicken Reason for deletion "Troll magnet as a fabulist sycophant who made themselves plenty of enemies here and outside named themselves after an extinct feline, so it kind of rhymes with this article's name. And the article itself is a stub for a decade, it has no redeeming quality whatsoever to keep." Over half of that reason is "troll magnet" with the stub part thrown in as an afterthought. @Knight Commander I already put in some effort, though it would be nice if those complaining about the article's state also contributed. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    'Stub' is never a legitimate reason to delete anything. This is not how wikis work. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 14:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    well, this is weird since many articles here got deleted on the premise that they were not good enough. What happened to articles on some Youtubers like Keemstar and Count Dankula? They definitely were missional, but they were deleted because everyone deemed them not good enough. And don't forget to vote. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 15:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • What potential does this article have? Oxymorons in general don't seem to be missional (where do things like deafening silence, original copy, etc. fit?), so the relevance is only as the concept applies to already-missional things. That leaves things like creation science, but what's to say that wouldn't fit better in the article we already have? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 21:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    Logic. The main problem perhaps is the fact that the article covers only the linguistic aspects of an oxymoron, which aren't very missional, but not the logical aspects. GeeJayK (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    @GeeJayK I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the logical aspects of oxymoron; it seems to me that oxymoron is largely tied up with linguistics. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 13:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    @GeeJayK In natural language, oxymorons are grammatical and unproblematic. Oxymoron’s are formed by juxtaposing two mutually contradictory predicates e.g. (Serene’s example) ‘original copy’. Predicates are: nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs. Predicates are predicated of objects. For instance: ‘original copy’ occurs in sentences such as ‘this is the original copy’, or ‘an original copy’, where the italics signify the object, or subject, that the predicates are predicated of (in this case ‘an’ and ‘this’ both signify objects). The sentences formed by predicates are either true or false of a given object; this is where pronouns come into the picture. Pronouns: be they masculine, feminine, neuter, or epicine (viz. non-binary)—are the objects of which predicates are either true or false. Pronouns are signified in first-order logic by variables e.g. ‘x’, ‘y’, ‘z’, …etc. Thus, in first-order logic, predicates are predicated of variables, for instance ‘Fx’ where ‘F’ signifies a predicate and ‘x’ signifies a variable. Therefore, to construct an oxymoron in first-order logic (viz. in scientific language), would require predicating two contradictory properties of the same object, that is, the same variable. Hence, with the example ‘an original copy’, is paraphrased into FOL as ‘(Ox . ~Ox), where ‘O’ shall be interpreted as ‘is original’, ‘x’ as the object in question, ‘.’ as conjunction, and ‘~’ as negation; I have paraphrased the original sentence in this way, since relative to the concept ‘original’, a copy is, by definition, not an original, and is thus represented by the negation of the predicate ‘O’. However, the formula formed ‘(Ox . ~Ox)’ violates the Law of Noncontradiction: the formula is invalid, since no object in the domain can satisfy it. It is literally impossible for something to be both ‘p and not p’. Thus we may represent this contradiction as ‘Ox . ~Ox ⊢ ⊥’ (which means this formula implies absolute falsehood). So, oxymorons are paraphrased into scientific language as invalid formulae.
Oxymorons are pervasive. We will continue to come across oxymorons on our website, and we will continue to interpret them so as to make sense of them, and so as to incorporate them into the scientific lexicon of our articles. Moreover, if we are interpreting (or for those of us who are translating) a given interlocutors sentences into scientific language, we ought to interpret our interlocutors in a way that preserves the logical laws e.g. the Law of noncontradiction. For example, if our interlocutors appears to hold the sentence “an original copy” as true (a sentence which is absurd once paraphrased into scientific language), then the apparent “problem” is more likely to be the result of an uncharitable interpretation, than our interlocutors actually being irrational.
Relative to scientific language, Oxymorons are absurd; relative to ordinary language, as figures of speech, they are flexible enough to avoid absurdity and maintain important pragmatic functions. To use an engineering metaphor: it is only when Oxymorons are employed in science that we become aware of their constative weakness, in response to the burden of rationality and rigour. Only in ordinary language, if oxymorons are taken literally, does absurdity arise; people forget that ordinary language is primarily a figurative artform (as opposed to literal). Absurd or not—in both cases—oxymorons remain meaningful and pragmatically indispensable. LeucippusSapere aude 17:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Even the keeps seem to agree it's low quality. Would moving to be a possible comprimise? Or would that require another discussion. Andrew5 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    I'm cool with the idea. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 13:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a bad stub that requires a substantial re-write. Since it’s a stub, I don’t see the problem with deleting it: If someone wants to re-write it, all they have to do is recreate the article with their desired amendments. LeucippusSalva veritate 22:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    What you're saying is a WP:TNTWikipedia like method. I wouldn't be opposed to it in this case, but I'd like to see what is drafted before it is set. Stuff, both here and on WP, gets abandoned. I've seen it on both sites. Andrew5 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Irrationality | Result: ?[edit]

Irrationality (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)


  1. You tell us to merge, but what is there to merge? This article belongs in the trash imo. Senioritas (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    It really says nothing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Move to below.
  2. Irrationality is when you think without rationality. Wow, thanks, article. I could never have guessed that! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Literally nothing to it. Anyone with an understanding of 'rationality' could guess what 'irrationality' is. Jake Holmesyell at me 13:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)



  1. Merge with the article on rationality, create a new subsection and then copy & paste the content of the article there. Afterward, use the hyperlink Irrationality as a redirect. This afd was made since this article has been a stub for a decade, will probably never be improved upon and also WP:DUE. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 10:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC) (Edit: 19:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC))
  2. Looks like a prime candidate to turn into a fork page. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 13:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    Other than rationality, I don’t see what you’d link it to. There are other uses of the word rational and irrational (most notably in mathematics), but we don’t have articles on those things. Christopher (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Christopher There's Innumeracy. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 13:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Nothing to merge. Redirect to rationality. Christopher (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. This article is appaling. Just redirect to rationality and call it a day. GeeJayK (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. Redirect with or without merge to rationality, (I’ll support which ever option is more popular so we don’t have to deal with a no consensus limbo), so we don't have to deal with redlinks.Andrew5 (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. Redirect to Rationality with a subheading on that article explaining what Irrationality is. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. -Flandres (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. (Assume my vote is the same as the most popular suggestion) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  9. This should have been part of the Rationality article to begin with. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  10. I think we could, eventually, have a separate article on irrationality; I certainly don’t think we keep this irrationality article separate as it currently stands. For now, a redirect into the rationality article seems the best option. LeucippusSalva veritate 15:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


  1. Merge/redirect is fairly split between a redirect without a merge and with. While it is 6-2 with redirect over delete (0 for keep),3 support no merge, 2 support a merge, and 1 supports a fork page. How will we get all that sorted out? Andrew5 (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    If there's no clear consensus, then the "Goat" wins and we do nothing. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    Let's be honest here, there is still a consensus since it's 3, 2, 1, etc. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 13:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    The divide is between a total delete, redirect without merge and redirect with merge, so the discussion ought to be changed.Andrew5 (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)