RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Anti-Oedipus

Anti-Oedipus | Result: Keep

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Anti-Oedipus

Anti-Oedipus (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Disorganized and poorly sourced, written without proper expertise on the subject. Pfelix (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

# Carthage (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep

1. None of the reasons given are reasons for deleting the article. They are all reasons for improving the article. Improving on-mission articles is always better than deleting them. Arguments along the lines of "I could improve it but I don't have time - so the community should delete it" are simply absurd. If you can fix it - then fix it - don't ask the community to kill it if your can't be bothered.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Move it to draft space? I'd rather have high-quality articles than low-quality hack pieces. Carthage (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Think it should be kept in mainspace right now for the following reasons;

   a) It's an on-mission article.

   b) WP's edition is almost unreadable to the layperson. Running segments through Flesch–Kincaid checkers has it scoring between 23 and 29, which has it tagged as 'Very difficult to read. Best understood by university graduates' and I would add '...of a related field'. This means our edition is even more needed, as I have an informal rule that we should try to have our pages at about 60, max [ie readable to an average 16 year-old].

   c) A poor-quality article can be seen as a challenge for improvement, including perhaps even pissing off someone enough to join up and 'sort it out' [hell, worked on me!].

   KarmaPolice (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

4. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{Prototype lab} 13:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. More articles are being deleted than are being created, but this article is undeniably low-quality. Move it to draftspace where (presumably) Pfelix can work on it? Carthage (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Goat

Hey, so the reasons why I think this page should be deleted is the following:

1. The text is really disorganized and confusing. It jumps all over the place and is hard to understand the summary of the book or the critique.
2. There are few citations and a lot of the article is just the opinion of the authors. (We should also strive to have good citations too - not just citations that repeat the Sokal Affair)
3. A LOT of errors, I just glanced through the schizophrenia section, but it was really rocky. A lot of unsourced and highly opinionated claims that would be better off sourced from somewhere else.
4. The article appears to have been written initially by an enthusiastic but not-well-read fan of the book, and then progressively edited over time by other people who did not like or understand the book. This contributes towards the confusion of the article but also leads to serious tone and quality shifts.
5. It would just be better in 90% of circumstances to link the Wikipedia article because it's more clear. If the critique is just "its too confusing", well, most people will probably be confused by the Wikipedia summary too, so... but at least that article is a lot more accurate.

We could possibly rewrite it but it would need to be done from scratch. I agree there is a lot of value of having critiques of this book available on the internet, but I think it should be sourced. If we don't have the time/resources to source these critiques I think we should just delete, link from Wikipedia and re-create the page when we are able to actually assemble those sources. Pfelix (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If you are really prepared (sometime) to write a superior article then you can start one in you personal space (or draft space)and then overwrite this one. But a probably better course of action would be to simply improve this one (when you have the time).Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)