RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Anne Rice

Anne Rice | Result: deleted

Anne Rice (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is just fancruft; barely relevant to site missions, if at all. We don't need an article on every minor celebrity who identifies as feminist or pro-human-rights. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep

1. What's wrong with a bit of background on someone with views relevant to missional topics? Nutty Roux (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

   Well, since everybody is pro- or anti- something relevant to the missions to a greater or lesser extent, that's basically everybody, and we'd end up as an unfocused directory of somewhat famous people & stuff they've said about things. It's much better to stick to people and topics with a meaningful connection to the missions rather than a vague tenuous one. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

   I think it's indicative of the current (low) state of RW's community that I am wondering if Nutty's serious or sarcastic.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

   Sarcastic. Feminism isn't missional except as it relates to missional topics. Feminists are not relevant by extension, but only because they relate to a missional topic. —Commenting on something mentioned in support of a missional topic does not make one missional. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

2. See Nutty. Edit: Nutty is a sarcastic ass, again. But feminism is still relevant. Feminists are relevant, by extension. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

   One article about Beyonce coming right up. Bicycle^wheel 19:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

   I detect sarcasm, but will pretend that I don't. Beyonce is relevant, if you wish to write about her. Perhaps her attempts to promote feminism and the backlash that she has recieved? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 04:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete

1. I wouldn't mind a delete, though the article is not completely out of bounds for RW. I did stumble across it a couple of weeks ago and wondered about the relevance. If it's to be kept, then I'd say it needs some expansion to indicate why Rice is important/interesting enough to merit an article as the current content reads as rather formulaic "she's a feminist and famous" boilerplate. I've given a heads up to the the original creator of the article (it's of quite recent origin) so (s)he has the opportunity to pitch in with a "keep" argument. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Delete.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
3. I must have been in a warm and fuzzy festive mood when I edited it on 15 December, otherwise, I would have nominated it for deletion myself. That and I don't want to be known as just the geezer that nominates every new page for deletion. True, we don't need articles on all minor celebs who at some time have said, "I'm a feminist", or, "I've given up religion". Spud (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
4. Every celebrity is either a feminist or a non/anti-feminist; the mere fact of having an opinion on feminism is not really enough to justify having an article, is it? Bicycle^wheel 19:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

   Agree, but the implications of your statement are potentially heretical at worse, heterodox at best. Be careful. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

5. Right now this page simply says nothing interesting as such. Did I really learn anything from reading that page, other than some personal views of Anne Rice? No. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)