RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Alger Hiss

Alger Hiss | Result: Keep

Alger Hiss (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. A poorly written and poorly sourced page that's hard to read on a subject that few other pages link to. At best, the good bits can go to Joseph McCarthy. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
2. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 07:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep

See the main article on this topic: Missional fallacy

1. . Periodically, they still carry on about this fellow in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. There's something worth admiring about that kind of obscure historical memory in this day and age. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 00:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

   True -- but our article isn't a good account of events. And given that we're not an encyclopedia, it might be impossible to change that. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

2. Keep - missional and no reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Keep, on condition of re-write. I'm not sure what the "gay-bahing lunacy" part is about. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Keep. Missional enough. Bongolian (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Rewrite comes first, not delete. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. I dunno. Is it missional? Maybe? RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
2. It's not clear to me that the article in question is unmissional, nor poorly written (admittedly at a glance). Seeing as how it's currently 4AM where I live — could anything be done to inform me better, which wouldn't involve me actually having to read through the whole article myself? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)