This is a list of old deletion discussions. Newest at the top.

December 2015[edit]

This is an archive page for an article that has been AfDed before. For the most recent AfD for this article, see here.

Xenogender | Result: Merged with non-binary gender[edit]

Xenogender – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Strange neologism with no science to back it up. If we take the description "genders which aren't accurately described by a 'human' understanding of gender" and replace "gender" with "science", we get a description of pseudoscience. If I go here I read things like "Having a gender which is bright, celestial, and radial." wut?! Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is within our missions, yeah? Wèàšèìòìď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, my point was more that this is a bunch of nonsense, rather than a serious thing that this page tried to sell. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete: within mission but not widespread nor likely to ever be. Take a look at [1] to see where this is leading. Bongolian (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Keep it as a separate concept. Merging it with non-binary genders is a bad idea since it seems to include otherkin and other odd neoglisms which could stigmatize the idea of non-binary genders.--Owlman (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
If it goes there, it won't be taken straight, but as a claimed thing with no scientific support. Bicycle^wheel 19:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Merge with non-binary gender. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Masturbation masturbation pies pies Brian Cox} 15:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
What Ray said. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
What Ray and Fuzzy said Hertzy (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
What, Ray, Fuzzy and Hertzy said. Bicycle^wheel 17:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
What Bicycle, Hertzy, Fuzzy and ray said. Haha, just kidding, it's backwards get it, I just disrupted the whole chain (lol), trolled, lmfao, XD, so funny, get it? I'm dead, lol. 8/10 gr8 b8 m8. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
What Bicycle, Hertzy, Fuzzy and Ray said. It's forward again [because no two of us have done it!] Anyhoo, merge and can describe as pseudoscience in context of other stuff that's not.---Mona- (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

How widespread is this phrase? If it's just something a handle of Tumblr users use I think a passing mention in our non-binary gender article is probably all that's needed. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
↑ Wot the mustelid sed. Pippa (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
That's 6 for redirect and 0 for keep. Snowball clause? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I think so. Bicycle^wheel 17:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Joy of Satan (español) | Result: Deleted[edit]

Joy of Satan (español) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

No references at all, contains some strong accusations about Nazism, and sort of doubles as a BLP. Difficult for me to judge if this is a "very obscure small cult" (which would be okay) or "not a cult at all and just some hit-piece" (NOT okay). Spud mentioned in the Saloon that "tried looking for reliable sources that backed up the claims made in the Spanish article. I couldn't find any. I could only find those claims repeated on a couple of websites that looked even shittier than the Joy of Satan one."... (translate) Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Since I'm quoted above, I have to say "delete" too. Spud (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Yee, outright hit piece with absolutely no references. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{You know who else exercises leeks? MY MOM!} 13:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Like they said ^^--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete delete delete, no references and if they can't be back ed up, why keep the article?--Pokefrazer (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
[joke about sacrificing this article to the dark god Satan] Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Our dark lord deserves something better. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

I would hold off a little while for the author to respond - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Or anyone else, for that matter. IMHO pages with only referencing problems and such can sit in AfD for a few weeks in the hope that someone fixes up the article enough so that the AfD can go away. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Juan Andrés Salfate (español) | Result: Deleted[edit]

Juan Andrés Salfate (español) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Living person with no references at all. Someone should probably ref this up or remove this (I would do it myself, but I don't speak Spanish). translate Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable references that say anything meaningful about him in Spanish or English. The Spanish Wikipedia article about him is a total piece of shit. It's only got three references. One is about Chilean celebs being busted for drugs. One just lists his name and doesn't say anything else about him. The other is a broken link to a sodding YouTube video. If there aren't any good sources for an article about a living person, it's not worth having. Spud (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Balete. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

*He's got a Spanish Wikipedia article. Mind you, that seems a bit crap. No, make that total crap. It's only got 3 references and the external links are Facebook and Twitter for fuck's sake. I'll look into him tomorrow. Spud (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

One of those three references on the Spanish WP article is a fucking YouTube video. And you can't even see it because whoever added the reference got the URL wrong. I am not impressed. Spud (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm now voting delete. Spud (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Worth pinging the author - David Gerard (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Fun:Ray Comfort | Result: Redirected[edit]

Fun:Ray Comfort – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not funny. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, I can't disagree with the reason given for deletion. Spud (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Unfunny. Besides, his regular page is plenty fun. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Would be an embarrassment to Uncyclopedia. (And links to a wiki that appears to be such an embarrassment.) That said, funspace is a bit of a dump anyway - David Gerard (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Calling it snowball clause, 4:0. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 19:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Angela Merkel | Result: Redirect to Germany for now[edit]

Angela Merkel – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

She's Germany's chancellor. Whoopie-doo. I removed almost all of this page (that a single user wrote in 2012) as it was nothing more than a boring bio (and unreferenced at that). Unless someone wants to take the time to actually write something useful here (and there's plenty of stuff to write, like Merkel's handling of the eurocrisis, although that's maybe better off on the Euro crisis page). I see no reason to keep this particular version as it's useful to nobody Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
She's only missional as she relates to extremism, which would be better covered in articles on neo-Nazis or on the European migrant crisis. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Or the Greeks loving to pull Godwins on her for not forking over money fast enough?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 04:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{For no man is an island of tat} 13:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Right in your neighborhood!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 04:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
If she ain't on mission, Jeremy Corbyn ain't either... I dislike the woman, but she does on occasion make good policy decisions... Usually after exhausting all alternatives... Given that she is now attacked from the right in the refugee crisis, my respect for her has risen somewhat, though... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I never said she isn't on-mission, just that he current page is useful for anyone and will waste anyone's time clicking on it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
There are already several conspiracy theories about her and the EU, like how she's apparently the daughter of Adolf Hitler. I'm not joking. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Put that in the page in a meaningful manner and make the page worth clicking on. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Andrea Yates | Result: Deleted[edit]

Andrea Yates – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This is about a person who committed a terrible crime while suffering from a severe psychosis and depression. The "religious angle" here seems coincidental to me; she could have had delusions about any number of subjects. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree. This seems like a pretty pathetic attempt to make out that Christians are evil. Plenty of people who commit crimes while mentally ill say, "God told me to do it", and not all of those people come from religious backgrounds. Spud (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{That's why our council tax is so high} 12:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

~~Useful for showing impact of religion on children. Make the religious angle clear from the psychotic angle. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 13:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)~~

All this article needs is a tune-up. Even if one was to argue that the psychotic and religious parts were 100% NOMA (which isn't entirely clear to me that they are), even in that case, the article is still useful against mental illness denial. There are sure to be cranks who think she's a lizard or was a satanist or whatever - worthy of a debunking from us. The article could use more analysis and generally a revamping, but it should stay. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems like less an implication of all Christians, just the power of faith in a fragile family which can be abused to tragic ends. This seems mission related in that is explores fundamentalism and the anti-science movements which had a direct part of her "going natural" and choosing to ignore doctors advice. Then ignoring the warning signs, and a forced hospitalization, because of suggestions for prayer and tough love by the families religious authorities. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Particular examples seem a bit of a departure for us, unless we like the idea in principle of having a host of similar articles. I'd prefer that this be merged into a single article 'Infanticide featuring religious mania' or somesuch, where we can give each case a single line entry summarising the various factors in each case. That could then be cross-linked to mental illness and abortion (specifically the parts debunking the 'termination is bad for the mental health' canard by providing concrete examples to underline the fact that carrying a pregnancy to term is on average worse for mental health) Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 14:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, wow. This. And this suggestion should totally count as a "Keep" vote. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I had a think about this, and it doesn't really address the core problem, which is that it's highly doubtful that religion played a large part in this particular case. The entire argument comes of as a sort of "internet atheist" who tries to "score points" by pointing out at all the bad things religion did. For example if you look at Andrea Yates it says "While in prison, Yates stated she had considered killing the children for two years". It's certainly possible that the religious influence "topped her over the edge", so to speak, but I would consider the evidence for this to be very weak... Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Do what Queex said. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 14:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

All non-English articles | Result: Leave them be for now (some articles deleted or put up for AfD)[edit]

Delete[edit]

We've just dumped two Hungarian-language articles that were created years ago and the abandoned. How about we get rid of the other scrappy foreign stubs that were created various single long-ago users and ignored ever since? (they can be found in Category:Babel. Bicycle^wheel 20:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you want to scrap ALL non-English stuff, or just the crappy ones? I thought that at least the Russian and French sites were sorta active? Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, is there a way to get a list of non-English articles? Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
what good is leaving one or two random non-english article? Also Russian has its own wiki and doesn't need us.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Even if they aren't stubs, the fact that most of these are random articles with no real effort put into making an actual foreign-language article base means we really have no reason to keep this going. If somebody really wants to make a spanish or arabic RW offshot, they can either put in the effort and get a spinoff like russionalwiki or just make their own wiki.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
We've currently got 46 articles in languages other than English (34 in French, 6 in Spanish, 3 in Portuguese, 2 in Greek and 1 in Italian). To see the lists, go to Category:Babel and click on the sub-categories. Spud (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
While I stand by Gerard's goat (see below) regarding taking our time to discuss before making any sudden moves; in principle I agree with Paravant and Bicycle. I think there are good reasons for us to codify english-only in the articles (meaning that non-english sources must "simply" be translated - and not merely machine translated - as they are used). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Plays the ballad of LeandroTellesRocha |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I AM VERY DISGUSTED WITH THE TRASHY MAN} 12:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Tempt me not to bring out the writing pen. Walker Walker Walker 22:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Drop all of them. If there's enough material and editor interest then we should start a new wiki in that language. The current system is just weird. Aleksandra96 (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep all[edit]

This sweeps with too broad a brush. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Crappy pages should be deleted on account of being crappy pages, regardless of language (as I did with Sceptycyzm yesterday). I see no reason to delete any non-English page only on account of being non-English. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep some[edit]

Even if we have a moratorium on further non-English entries & delete the stubby/crappy ones, I think some of the early articles, especially the French ones, are good quality & worth keeping. Loi de Poe, for example, shits on the equivalent Wikipedia page. Щєазєюіδ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
What Weaseloid said. If the articles are above average quality then it would be ridiculous to delete them, no matter what language. Typhoon (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a rather larger issue than something to put through in an AFD and warrants actual discussion e.g. on the Saloon Bar - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
My only reason to vote for a blanket deletion would be brand, and I don't think there's enough of an issue there at all. That said, this idea of a moratorium, might, as per Raysenn, be prudent. Walker Walker Walker 23:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed on warranting an actual discussion rather than a flat purge. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
What is there to say against creating language versions? You know, like Wikipedia? Or half of all crappy second rate wikis there are? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 04:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Scope clarification: does articles mean mainspace only? Walker Walker Walker 23:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that non English articles should be made by people who have some degree of regular and effective communication with the English part of the wiki, if only because it'd be much easier to audit their contents. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{By the way, 2 divided into 666 is 333} 12:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I certainly approve of that idea, although I think it would probably be impossible to enforce. Mind you, I think LTR was highly unusual in being an editor who didn't have much of a grasp of English and who almost always wrote in his native language on talk pages, in the Bar and everywhere else. Spud (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Of great concern for me is how we can know what it is we are hosting? It's so fucking provincial to insist on English-only, but how can the community control quality if we literally permit Babel? (I could reasonably read French articles, tho I'd not want to edit them -- my French is just too rusty, having divorced the man I regularly spoke it with almost 20 years ago.)---Mona- (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty arrogant to insist on an English-only Wiki, but we need a way to make sure it can be read by native speakers coherently? (I can read German articles to a degree but I'm nowhere near fluent so I don't dare edit them)--Pokefrazer (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Jerboa[edit]

Jerboa x Goat[edit]

Yes plz. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 04:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ferret[edit]

Mowse[edit]

RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic (2nd nomination) | Result: Kept[edit]

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic – (View AfD)

Previous AfD here

Delete[edit]

Continued fighting over this page is an embarrassment to this site. Does this really relate to RW:MISSION? No "pseudoscience" or "Anti-science" involved; I've seen very little real "crank" ideas involved, and it doesn't relate to either "authoritarianism" or "fundamentalism". Aren't we better off bashing each other's head in over something that actually matters? Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly seen some moral panicking, has it not?---Mona- (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
No, that's a persecution complex and your own shitty research on pop culture.—Ryulong (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
What? What on earth would I be being "persecuted" for? And if you deny that moral panics occur, well, that would be as reasonable as your usual offerings.---Mona- (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Bronies have a persecution complex and your there is no "moral panic" over Bronies. It's feminists, LGBT activists, and others pointing out the pervasive toxic nature of this particular fandom.—Ryulong (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Moral panics are not alien to feminists. They've participated in them before. Not the sensible among us, but some have.---Mona- (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
That may be, but that's not the case here.—Ryulong (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
You are among the last people credible on a claim like that. The more you pound the table denying it, the more I'm inclined to suspect it is, indeed, a moral panic.---Mona- (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
So what logical fallacy would you be guilty of for believing something simply because I'm the one telling you it's not the case? Because myself, and plenty of other people across the internet, don't hate Bronies for their sexual proclivities, alleged or otherwise. It's because they're an extremely toxic group of people like every other libertarian/objectivist group borne of 4chan assholes.—Ryulong (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
You consider this community to be "toxic", so your judgement record here is not exactly great. And "libertarian/objectivist group borne of 4chan assholes" is just laughable. You go around accusing other people of "snarl words" and "dog whistles" and here you do exactly the same thing. You're no better. All you've said here borders on hatred, and you've probably hurt your own "cause" (to get this article deleted) more than anyone else. Congratulations. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh no I've been outed as a bronyphobe. Whatever shall I do? /s
Just because I'm saying these things doesn't make them false. Multiple people (a lot more from WHtm) have made these conclusions. The Brony community is overwhelmingly associated with the 4channer MRA/libertarian/"baby's first Ayn Rand book" type. And y'all still are toxic.—Ryulong (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
K, Im maybe not mad with you (Ryulong), Put did found video [from one depressed Youtuber point of view] that Bronies are just could be hypocritical of their own subculture and seemly link to MRA's, Just maybe [true]. 98.27.29.192 (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
It really has no place outside of the odd obsession with one episode that was justified for its inclusion last time and a vague association with Internet assholes. The page's existence locally is nothing more than fans of the show who have an odd insistence that it must be included wherever possible even on the barest of justifications like the "oh in this episode it teaches viewers that you should just accept supernatural faith instead of science based reasoning" when it's magical cartoon horses and its odd fandom amongst MRAs and such.—Ryulong (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Love is wise, hatred is foolish. Let go of the hatred. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Wine is sweet, gin is bitter. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This article is just a battleground for assertions that belong in other articles. Mostly it just boils sown to snark at a group of people we already have a page on. The only RWish part is where it gets criticised by the usual right wing blonks, which wouldn't normally be enough to justify an article on any other show. The Brony subculture may be weird, but is writing about it missional? I don't see that part. Bicycle^wheel 21:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I say we get rid of it. It's barely on-mission, and it's become embarrassingly polarizing for such a petty subject. At least the fighting over the Israel-Palestine conflict's coverage made some sense in that regard. Blitz (Complaints Box) 21:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Exactly! That is about something important, this is about some TV show (and one single episode, at that) with an unexpected fanbase. Everyone involved in edit warring about it should get a fucking life. Bicycle^wheel 21:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Well maybe put my idea of put some parts like Pornography or "But it's a show for little girls!" section that seems likely successful deleted page could merged to Furry fandom page as "Subgenre section" to be reminder that some bronies are maybe unintenional closeted furries??? 70.61.121.86 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone give a flying one if they are or not? and is picking on furries because "eeeuuurgh furries LOLZORS" still a thing anymore? And even if the answer is yes, how does it fit the mission? Bicycle^wheel 21:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Well person who sound or try doing same thing nine years later are try picking on flaw section in Brony/MLP:FIM page to ultmately favoring on deleted page because its weird and cant fit "the mission of wiki". 70.61.121.86 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Could you explain what you're saying in plain English please? Bicycle^wheel 21:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Not on mission (oh, it endorses magic instead of science? It's a fucking cartoon!) and it's just an extremely unimportant topic. I mean, there really isn't a reason it should be on RationalWiki at all. If you're gonna rip on cloppers or anything, there's already a page on furries.- Shouniaisha (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Put if delete that page with some more words editing, It just only said one word (Name of show itself with was only link to page)... ...Its Wikifur counterpart shows more unintentional simliares bewteen two arent ignore with some few things are try avoided with 'minor' success. 70.61.121.86 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Trying to write something bronies won't get upset about is like ramming your head into a brick wall. If we can't be critical about the fandom, it does not deserve to be on rationalwiki, as that makes the article a waste. And in my experience, even the most minor critical assertion is fought over. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
no really wtf why is this even here |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{This isn't 'Nam. This is exercising. There are rules.} 01:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
My opinion hasn't changed. Not really missional. Vulpius (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no relevance to the mission. Aleksandra96 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Just horrible trash. Typhoon (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The key point being that whatever dubious relevance this has to the mission is over-shadowed by a whole bunch of poorly thought out arguments in favour, and in criticism of the fandom. One cartoon episode with a poor epistemoligical message is the extent of the relevance; I can't help but feel many of the keep votes are doing it for reasons other than mission relevance, perhaps because they feel that certain users have been able to push the site around through sheer volume and persistence. This may be true, but goddamn, it doesn't make the article any more missional. Tielec01 (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
In fairness alot of the delete votes have poor reasons too... not hating on the keeps. Tielec01 (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
FFS. I hate having to line up with that bed-wetting hand-down-the-nappy weeaboo fuckwit Ryulong, but this is just not what we're about. MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 05:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Jesus Effing fuck why is this even a question? rpeh •T•C•E• 22:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Kill it with a razor-edged ~~fedora~~ trilby - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Why the ehck is this article relevant to the wiki. It has some moral panick-related value at best, but in that case we might as well write an article about anything that ever caused moral panic. I demand an article about Catullus! JorisEnter (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Repetitive nomination, was kept towards the end of October. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Was kept, why is this up for nomination again? Why is deleting this few kilobits so important? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
(Comment) Honesty I feel they like guy for was this deleted again are ether Psychologically Anti-Bronies (Like user Blitz) or Super Mentally Anti-Bronies (Like users Kitsunelaine and [very likely] Ryulong) that try make other excuse to deletion this again? 70.61.121.86 (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Excuse you, but I happen to be a member of the MLP fandom. I just happen to agree that this article is barely on-mission, and as of now has become an edit war between bronies and anti-bronies.Blitz (Complaints Box) 19:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is "an edit war between bronies and anti-bronies" at all. I don't give a flying hoot about MLP (I watched two episodes and found it to be profoundly boring, sorry), but I sure as hell don't want this site be hosting some hateful unfair hitpiece (on any topic). I believe this is how almost everyone feels. The battle is between Bronyphobes (Ryulong, Kitsunelaine) and the rest of the site. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Tell that to everyone else who thinks the article should be deleted, bruh. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
"Think this article should be deleted" does not equate to "think that Ryulong and Kitsunelaine are right about MLP". Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
"This battle is between bronyphobes and the rest of the site" - Carpetsmoker, 2015, one day ago - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 08:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
You know very well that I was referring to the edit wars and such concerning this article, just as Blitz was, and not the AfD. Go play your word games somewhere else. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
We're on the AFD page. You, uh. You realize that, right? "this battle" is incredibly vague and contains ~*implications*~. also i'm not a bronyphobe, all fandoms are shit, but bronies and their behavior are up there among the worst as a special case of awful. ciao~ - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 08:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
but bronies and their behavior are up there among the worst as a special case of awful.- Kitsunelaine ^{[citation needed]} --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
here you go bro - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 17:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
So basically a Do your own research? That's fucking pathetic, even for you.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
"this is blatantly obvious to everyone who isn't a part of the herd and a simple google search is literally all you need" but i guess you can't read between the lines - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 17:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
A Google search link, especially such a ridiculously broad one, is not a goddamn source.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
bruh, no source I add is ever gonna be enough for you because you're a part of the herd. Why should I even try? :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 18:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
"no source I add is ever gonna be enough for you" What omniscient crystal bowl told you that?? --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
It's deductive reasoning based on your prior behavior towards criticism aimed at bronies. :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 18:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Also I didn't know crystal dinnerware was a thing in fortune telling. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Kitsunelaine, lmgtfy has it's uses, but not when you don't narrow the search to include terms that should yield documentation -- if it exists -- that Bronies are ~~vile freaks~~ ~~baby rapers~~ unsavory, and you did not supply such terms. Merely directing someone to Google results for "Bronies" is just stupid.---Mona- (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you say. :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 18:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok Wěǎšěǐǒǐď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} for that maybe good theory, If this happen again third time?, If second deletion failed again?, I dont know put some made list of Users with there special template who likely Anti-Brony? Put if this or third attempted successfully deleted, I could just put some of Brony concept aka But it's a show for little girls! section into Furry page as probable "Subgenre" section with completely renamed as Possible "Closeted Furry" fandoms??? (Also found couple links that somewhat proves that Bronies are (Unintentional) semi-independent group of furries: All Bronies Are Diet Furries and ARE BRONIES FURRIES? from their own followers of MLP:FIM). 70.61.121.86 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
People that crusade against some random sexual preference seem to be trying to validate Haggard's Law. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
What, You sould put into merged section since it got most ironic Haggard's Law thing I did, And first all, That Im majority Bi-romantic Asexual (Im serious, Not trolling) and Two Im having nothing against LGBT subculture at all? 70.61.121.86 (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought you were championing keeping it since you called several people out for being anti-Brony. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

But who is it to the end? Why to make the thing? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{By the way, 2 divided into 666 is 333} 03:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

~~I very now keep this until if Majority favoring to delete the page. 70.61.121.86 (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)~~
I vote we keep this page. It's already being nominated for a second time! How is this possible? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 22:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I retract what I said earlier. The reason the we're fighting over the MLP page now is because Ryulong, Kitsunelaine, et al. are on their crusade to revise it as a hit piece or delete it. I vote we keep it and have compromise on it, but seeing as this is the second AfD nomination, I am just dumbstruck as to what to do further to stop more shitfests from occurring... Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 00:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
^{[citation needed]} Adding sourced criticism of toxic behavior does not a hit piece make, brorse. Also don't double vote.—Ryulong (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
My apologies (forgot I already voted, and thanks for deleting), but you pretty much tried to paint a real broooooaaaaaad stroke of tar on the entire fandom and claim it as a neutral and balanced article. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 00:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't introduced that to the article. The current edit war is over criticising an amateur documentary that is seen as propagandist by multiple reviewers (even though some aren't professionals either). And my stance isn't unfounded.—Ryulong (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I remember that there was one documentary that did try to portray the fandom as that (I think it was the first major one that came out), but the majority just adopt this stance of "Where did these fans come from?" And, while your stance isn't unfounded, per se, that is only one small (yet kind of loud) portion of the fandom. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 00:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, the No true Scotsmaning, aka #NotAll~~Men~~Bronies. Criticism of the worst of the fandom (because they are a loud group) should be included rather than endlessly fought over as turning the page into a hit piece. Although my attempts at this were stymied because of the original view that I was doing that (because I had done it all as snarkily as possible).—Ryulong (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I never ever excluded them from the fandom. That's no No True Scotsmaning. Although my attempts at this were stymied because of the original view that I was doing that (because I had done it all as snarky as possible). Really? RW:MISSION explicitly says that use of snark should be at a minimum, and you tried to make it as lolzy as possible? How about we move this article into Funspace? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 16:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
No I'm saying it's the fans who did that. And I didn't make it "lolzy". I simply took no punches.—Ryulong (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh not again, Celestiadamnit!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It's on mission, with all sorts of moral panic stuff surrounding it.---Mona- (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
There's no fucking moral panic, Mona. Someone's school essay posted to DeviantArt isn't proof of a moral panic.—Ryulong (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
There's no fucking moral panic, Mona. Someone's school essay posted to DeviantArt isn't proof of a moral panic.—Ryulong^{Do You Believe That?} Wha-how-huh? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 23:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It was a reference she added to the article to suggest the moral panic was an aspect of backlash against the fans.—Ryulong (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Could you show me where I added a reference to the article about a "moral panic?" (But I probably will.)---Mona- (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
sweatie (:—Ryulong (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah. I guess I did already add that salient point. Good on me!---Mona- (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
But the reference is shit (particularly because if I was chastised for using a wiki you should have been chastised for using deviantart of all places) and the reasoning is shit. It's not a moral panic. It's because a large portion of the fandom has its origins in the misogynistic and racist parts of 4chan and that behavior still lingers.—Ryulong (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the second time I have seen you use that non-word. Are you misspelling "sweaty" or "sweetie."? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Lol, is Ryu trying to say Sweetie Belle? Or sweaty? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 07:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes—Ryulong (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryo, there's no basis for rejecting deviantart as a source. That you don't like it is wholly insufficient. The article I used as a source is intelligent and well-reasoned.---Mona- (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Some kid's shitty essay that he put up on DeviantArt because he was tired of being kinkshamed for being a Brony isn't a good reference when Paravant et al. berated me for using blogs written by feminists and other cultural critics.—Ryulong (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Non sequitur. Your issues with Paravant have nothing to do with devianart being a reputable site or with the fact that that article is sociologically sound.---Mona- (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Reputable for what??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Also Ryu, here's a couple of ethnographers discussing the Brony fandom, including the moral panic about them.---Mona- (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
No because DeviantArt is not a reputable site and if I was berated for using someone's essay posted to Tumblr or Wordpress, you should be berated for using someone's school essay posted to dA. And criticism of Bronies for their deleterious behavior on the Internet which isn't focused on whatever fetishes they have is not a moral panic. And the words "moral panic" only appear once in that whole thing and even reading further it doesn't expound on that either.—Ryulong (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Ryu, I don't give a shit about your imagined persecution and attempts to create some bizarre parity due to some battle over sources you've had with others. The fact remains that the paper I cite is intelligent and sound, as well as sourced. the second piece is an interview with 2 ethnographers where they explain Bronies from a proper ethnographic perspective and assume a moral panic in the entire approach, as they explicitly say at one point. You are wrong, unreasonable and utterly wrong. But that is usual.---Mona- (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
If I got called out for using sources that weren't up to par then I can call you out for citing a fucking kid's high school class essay that he posted onto deviantArt. And the phrase "moral panic" only shows up once in that entire website you linked and there's no valid answer to the question posed.—Ryulong (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
1. It is likely a college paper for a social deviance class (a sourced one), and 2. the ethnographers take it as a given that moral panic surrounds the Brony phenomenon. That's a big part of what they explore in that exchange, explicitly saying so to begin the discussion. You just don't like it. Anyhoo, if the article stays I'll add that reference.---Mona- (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Wëäŝëïöïď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I like ze drifting mission, iiit is güd. Walker Walker Walker 23:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
More seriously, while this page is only loosely related to the RW mission, I don't see that alone as requiring deletion, and I don't see the article as so deeply otherwise problematic as to need it. Walker Walker Walker 05:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep per my previous reason. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:51, 2 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
Just keep it, There are just ironic kept Captain Planet here even despite is cartoon. 98.27.29.192 (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe that should be ditched, too.—Ryulong (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
So you just hate Cartoons even despite some them have politically left morals with some dark elements that cant fit for small kids demographic, Thus means can fit for adults demographic instead with serious issues in based ether real or fictional. I start finally thinking you (Ryulong and possibly other Anti-bronies) got likely case of beliving in Animated Age Ghetto myth. 98.27.29.192 (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Nice persecution complex there. That and I don't think you get to vote here.—Ryulong (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Wait what? No dude, You just asking you are probably just love denied all you want, Put proof (One source, Until found article like this maybe sound proof my point that are psychologically Ageist) are sound point to there, And instead you write almost sound irrational-like put there in top is try attempted to giving "good" justify to ignored, That almost people in this wiki are rather being unintentionally regressive or ironic ageist by deleting pages like this (Again). 98.27.29.192 (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not think animation is just for children. I just think RationalWiki shouldn't have a page on My Little Pony because it's a vague stretch to say that the one anti-science episode in a fantasy cartoon for little girls that was usurped by adult men justifies its inclusion on RationalWiki, particularly if the rest of the page is used to praise a community known for its toxicity and anti-feminist rhetoric. The same can be said for Captain Planet because it just seems to be poorly written but maybe it just needs some work. Looking through Category:Television programmes shows that there's only one other cartoon on RationalWiki and that's Veggie Tales, but that can stay because it's existence here is to mostly mock Christian fundamentalism (but the page is also kinda crap looking).—Ryulong (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok than, Put someday that real Progressive/"Left Libertarian" shows that have real mortal like Legend of Korra, Steven Universe or Gravity Falls for examples sould replace "Bad ones". 98.27.29.192 (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
You need to understand what RW:MISSION is.—Ryulong (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
What's wrong with the last vote? Just keep it ... MarmotHead (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Because it was apparently done fo the sake of inciting a flame war.—Ryulong (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
There is plenty about MLP (good, bad, ugly) that makes it worth keeping. Indeed, the fact that there are some bronies who also use MLP to subscribe MRA nonsense makes it worth keeping. That being said, MLP is certainly not a topic worth all the goddamn edit wars over it. Gooniepunk (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The amount of energy that's been expended in flame wars over this particular topic is truly amazing. Nevertheless, there are elements of this peculiar culture that are missional. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep, just to piss off the people who get annoyed by this... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
So you're going to be one of the poor decision keep votes that Tielec01 mentioned? Nice to know that.—Ryulong (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Pop culture with a hint of sexual morality, and thus as missional as Gamergate or furries. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Which is to say, not missional at all. Wiki would be improved by fucking off those articles too. Tielec01 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but a world without those articles is not a world we're ever gonna live in. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Gamergate's missional because it's a clusterfuck of conservatism and Internet assholatry. Furry fandom doesn't look missional at all though.—Ryulong (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
"Internet assholatry" is not missional, and neither is "conservatism" as such. Interestingly, "it's just Internet assholatry" is pretty much the reason you've stated on why you think this article should be deleted. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
If conservatism isn't missional then you might as well nuke everything about Conservapedia from the website.—Ryulong (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Will you stop fucking whining? You sound like a god-damn petulant 12-year old. Get over yourself. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
So I can't refute people's bullshit arguments?—Ryulong (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
You can do whatever you want. But why you would want to bitch, moan and cry like a child over a bloody cartoon show is beyond me. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep per previous reason. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep. We dealt with all this as recently as October and it is nuts that the article has been AFD'd again so soon.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Throw in some more focus on the "accepting and tolerating others means accepting and tolerating neo-nazis" nonsense that exists in the fandom. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, uhh, and... More locks on the article. Maybe appoint some kind of overseer to filter out anything too apologetic or too... Ryulong. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

I feel leading Maybe merged some of most ideas into Furry fandom page like Pornography and Brony sections as under new name as Mostly likely "Closeted subgenre to Furry fandom" if this attempt successfully deleted (Again). (Almost face palm?) 70.61.121.86 (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
That works too. ClickerClock (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Give it to another wiki[edit]

Someone at SJwiki should put it in Social Justice Wiki instead of here. They already have a page on Bronies. Just copy and paste; ok some editing is needed to ensure it fits the tone of SJwiki but it's still good material that shouldn't be wasted. ClickerClock (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I say we move the article over to our buddies over at that other site. JorisEnter (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Good joke! Love it. Those hyper conservative nutjobs will hate it. Why will they hate it? It is because... of this. ClickerClock (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

AFD-ed less than two months ago already, so too early for a new AFD IMO. But really, I think deleting it and moving the relevant bits to other articles would be better. The MRA-ish sub-segment of the brony subculture is fascinatingly bewildering... Dendlai (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The previous AfD was tainted as it was in the middle of Ryulong being a gigantic shithead over MLP and putting it up for deletion because he couldn't have his way. Certainly my "keep" vote then was because I didn't want Ryulong terrorizing the wiki into getting his way. I don't know how many other people feel this way, but I think it's worthwhile doing the AfD again. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
"I voted the wrong way last time in order to make a petty point, and would therefore like a do-over." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that's one way of phrasing it, which is perhaps not entirely unfair. Yet, I suspect more people feel like me (apologies if I'm wrong). Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I see that you moved the existing AFD page & created a new one rather than reviving the existing discussion/vote. What's your basis for doing that? It seems like you're arbitrarily discounting all the comments & votes that were made ~~only just over a week ago~~ & making everyone post their opinions over again if they want their vote to count which they shouldn't have to do. Ŵêâŝêîôîď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

My mistake: it was a month & a week ago. Still, I think the smart thing to do would have been to add your vote to the existing AFD & put it back on the AFD page for further comment rather than starting over & making everyone retread their thoughts on the subject. Щєазєюіδ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It seemed more useful to me to start with a "clean" page as I suspect that a reasonable number of people will vote different. My apologies if I turn out to be wrong, in which case I will owe everyone a beer. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, it is on mission. And I don't know that we should go down the road of deleting articles just because they cause controversy.---Mona- (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
If I squint just so, I can perhaps slightly see the vague outlines of missionality. Normally I wouldn't object to articles that are only vaguely on-mission, but when it kicks up a shitfest every month we're better off without it. I don't care a flying hoot about MLP, but I also don't want RW to be hosting pages that call entire fandoms a bunch of demented horsefuckers. So good people, like you and me, have to spend time "protecting" this article from the likes of Ryulong). We both have more important matters to attend to, both on this wiki, and outside it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not missional. It's Brony puffery about their favorite TV show made to look missional. "This episode teaches girls I mean Bronies to accept non-science based faith" is as much of a fucking stretch as one can get, as can the original wording of several parts that amounted to the usual libertarian/objectivist obsession with "censorship" because a background animation error in joke at the production company turned into a completely different demeaning joke by the fans.—Ryulong (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Carpetsmoker: It wasn't Ryulong who started the previous AfD, it was me. Admittedly, I did it in order to stir more shit and see if I could cause a flame war or two in the AfD, so I'd say it was tainted. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Your memes end here!} 03:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep it and topic-ban everyone who's edited the page from touching it, to stop the shitfits over it. (Yeah yeah, "topic ban" is Wikipedia jargon, sue me.) I don't care that much one way or the other about keeping the page, but I don't like the idea of deleting something just because some people can't discuss it like rational adults. --Ymir (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
But why bother having it at all when it's just barely on mission because of a bunch of fans who tried their best to find something they could talk about and then rage when critics come along?—Ryulong (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the history, this article wasn't exactly a hotbed of conflict and was stable (no pun intended) for months until two users decided to wage jihad on it, and you'll notice that both of the belligerent parties that caused the fracas to begin with have voted to outright delete it here. Why should the entire article be destroyed rather than taking a more surgical approach such as applying protection to prevent their edit warring from continuing? Razing it to the ground and salting the earth because two people seem to have a vendetta against the subject matter and can't leave it alone seems like overkill to say the least. (Which isn't to say that their complaints are completely without merit (I spent some time earlier today and easily found sources to elaborate on the brony documentary section most of this drama has been about), but behaving like l337 3d17 w4rr10r5 about My Little Pony of all things is certainly not going to win support/gather consensus for changes) As far as I know the series is still ongoing, and I'd rather read the RationalWiki analysis than end up at Horse News or Equestria Daily or similar nonsense. Lightning Dust (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Speaking from my own experience, it can become difficult not to reflexively oppose any edits made by a user who's been a totally unreasonable asshat vis-a-vis an article one is working on. It's often a good rule of thumb to assume they're behaving true to form, but one can make errors and need to be called back by those not so invested in the acrimonious dynamic. One might process the same text differently (but not necessarily) when made by a neutral party. This is just human and best resolved by reining in the asshat(s). But I do agree with your basic point -- to delete because of fighting is to give unreasonable parties a heckler's veto over the site. Not a good idea.---Mona- (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That's using Jihad wrong. A Jihad is a crusade against UNbelievers. Which is me and Ryulong, (and about 7 others right now) in this case. :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
From RW:MISSION:
5. And nothing else, dammit.

Walker Walker Walker^{Do You Believe That?} 19:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Trim hard back to missional content, mod-lock forever, slap Ryulong and his little friends with a wet fish. Anyone who gives a shit about this cartoon is a fucking muppet. Bicycle^wheel 15:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Finally, someone who speaks my language! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree, although I hope to be forgiven for entertaining a nasty suspicion that yet another shitstorm will break out over the definition of which bits of the current content are "missional"... ScepticWombat (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Gamergate | Result: Kept (snowball clause)[edit]

Timeline of Gamergate – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Tl;Dr We already have a timeline on the main GG article, this articles existence is redundant besides to catalog every minute event, something we do not do to other much more wiki-elevant topics or even CP these days "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Actually, this is one of the best articles on GG on the internet. It's (apparently) widely used by anti-Gamergaters. It's even been (sometimes) praised by KotakuInAction for how completely it documents events (albeit from the wrong perspective, according to them). FuzzyCatPotato of the Educated Tanks (talk/stalk) 23:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It is too detailed and well referenced an account to get rid of. If it is as widely used as FCP says then it is especially valuable to keep. As for its missionalality it seems to me to be a part of refuting the (relatively recent) pseudo history pushed by the GGer's (about their own movement and their opponents). I do not see it as redundant. SolPyre (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
It is ridiculously (a) well referenced (b) useful (c) missional: refuting a right-wing reactionary crank movement trying to use media lies. It is part of the detailed backing material on the subject. 7513 hits in November and 6816 in October, it's clearly useful to someone - David Gerard (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Clearly, this article is important outside of RationalWiki. As such, it would be penny-wise and pound foolish to get rid of it. Gooniepunk (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
It is something that is needed to combat Gamergaters when they try to spin the truth and engage in history revisionism, which is incredibly common. As such, the site needs to keep it. I 100% agree with a point David made about the topic (albeit over a different article) here, and that kind of argument style is much easier to work with when you have a fully cited, extensive list of factual events at your disposal.- Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The Gamergate articles are good as long as many reasonable people also edit them. I find them impressive.---Mona- (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I like it, it's comprehensive. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Very good reference; one of the best on the 'net. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
No substitute. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 01:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If for no other reason than to keep the main Gamergate article semi-readable. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Technically, this could just be moved to a WIGO:Gamergate archive page. Also, I'm surprised no one's nommed this before. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's 'cuz we didn't want the ensuing war with a certain somebody. Gooniepunk (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A WIGO gamergate would just get everything downvoted by the GG trolls. Bicycle^wheel

00:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I said, at this point it would just be an archive page. Adding those rating thingies to it all this time after the events occurred would just be silly anyway. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:45, 10 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

Ambivalent, is certainly not a good article, but it seems like a lot of work to just throw away. Reserve the right to change my vote if people make a good argument. Tielec01 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
8:1. Can we call snowball clause? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
10:1 now. And probably. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:43, 10 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
Wait! Can't we at least get to HCM3 first? This has been no fun.---Mona- (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Give me something to yell at you about! We can't keep agreeing with each other, it's unnatural! - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid we must endure the tragedy of agreement because you are too much of an asshole to change your mind. (How's that?)---Mona- (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
BUWHAAAAAAAAAAT?! ME! AN ASSHOLE?! YOU KNAVE! YOU AND I MUST DUEL TO DECIDE THE TRUTH ON THE MATTER. LETHAL COMBAT IS THE ONLY OPTION. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason not to close this vote. Gooniepunk (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Victims of medical woo | Result: Deader than the victims themselves[edit]

Category:Victims of medical woo – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

In anecdotes, one can never be absolutely sure about what caused a person's demise. Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 11:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we need an AfD for an empty category. So I just went ahead and deleted it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fun:Kurt Wise | Result: Wisely dead[edit]

Fun:Kurt Wise – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not funny. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 16:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The template text "Tired of laughing?" just fits that article too well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I can't disagree with our feline friend's reason for deletion. Spud (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
IMHO we can remove at least half of funspace btw. Some of it is nice, the rest ... meh ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Rapa Nui | Result: Keep[edit]

Rapa Nui – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Highly unclear if missional, lacks sources almost entirely. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Let me clarify right now, also: I'm kinda really going for a vote on rewriting the page from scratch here to focus on the woo. Currently it's just an appaling, unsourced high school essay on Rapa Nui that attempts to stylistically ape a general encyclopedic article (which is off mission). The woo musn't be missed, but I suspect a brand new article would literally be best. That, or we slice the fat off of the current one - leaving about 15% of it standing, mind you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The page could be better, yeah (mostly lack of citations); but I don't think there are any fundamental problems with it, as such. Why do you want to trim it to 15%? Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was under the impression that the article had perhaps strayed further from the mission than the mob actually considers it to have done - and I don't disagree with what's been said below. I was mostly struck by the length of an article lacking sources, the apparent lack of snark, the encyclopedic tone, topped off by the lack of template to quickly indicate what the woo was. Thus; I've updated my views on what constitutes an article worth keeping. Someone who knows how to set the result to Keep and conclude this AfD would be a dear to do so. But I still mean that the article will need a rewrite; never mind the inherent trouble in having a tall article with basically no sources. Having brought it to the attention of the mob has hope fully accomplished something in and of itself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure, this page could be a lot better, but "slice the fat off of the current one - leaving about 15%" is too fanatical IMHO. Not everything needs a pin-point focus on the woo, describing some history is useful for context, and describing other curiosities (like the writing) is just interesting (and why not?) ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Rapa Nui is a wellspring of pseudo-archaeological woo. "The states were built by aliens!" "The statues are of aliens!" "The islanders are aliens!" There's also the typical history of Western imperialism and its impact on the indigenous inhabitants. Definitely missional, I would say. --Ymir (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep. It just needs more references. Besides the outright pseudo-archaeology associated with Rapa Nui, Heyerdahl's hypotheses remain controversial. Heyerdahl was a real zoologist/geographer who helped popularize the study of ancient civilizations, but his hypotheses are for the most part one of 1) not widely accepted 2) wrong or 3) possibly partly correct. Bongolian (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ymir and Bongolian: Can we atleast agree on a "keep under the condition of fixing it up"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
That's fine with me, Reverend Black Percy. Bongolian (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Come on. We actually need an article about Rongo-rongo. There's a lot of interesting real history, with ecological lessons that are also missional. The statues, of course, were built by little green men from Uranus. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 06:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
This was actually one of my very first introductions to woo; as a kid I read this "science" magazine which, in hindsight, promoted all sorts of wootastic views. The Easter island "mystery" (as it was presented there) fascinated me for years until I learned (not that long ago, actually) that it's all bullshit. Very keep. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
relevant re: ancient aliens and Von Daniken. Ace ⁱ⁹ 06:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
If you're in no doubt that an article is about a mission-worthy subject but think that the current article is crap, don't nominate it for deletion. If you're sufficiently interested in the subject, start editing the page to improve it. Be bold! If you're not, leave a comment on the talk page, appealing for interested editors to make the page better. You could also leave a message in the Bar in order to get more eyes on the page. We all know that Easter island is a truly wootastic place and there's really no question of deleting the page. Starting it again from scratch, maybe. Spud (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Does the wiki generally delete articles that are about woo if they're overwhelmingly unsourced and poorly written? Sincerely asking, as I'm still learning the Magnificent and Mysterious Ways of RW.---Mona- (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Typically, only if it's truly terrible (which this isn't) or if it may cause legal problems (obviously). Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

We have a few articles like this - prose popularisations that the main author never really got around to peppering with little blue numbers. Occasionally an article is so terrible that no article is an improvement on what's there, but I wouldn't say this is one - David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I could've mirrored Mona's question - I'm still learning, too. So; good to get these replies from the community. As far as my own edumacation is concerned, you didn't all reply to this in vain. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep, missional - David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly missional. I have noticed a tendency to aFD articles here because they could be better. Surely that is not the purpose of an AFD?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
FuzzyCatPotato of the Luminous Andrew Schlaflys (talk/stalk) 14:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
More in-depth than most articles, but missional. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

November 2015[edit]

Kwanzaa | Result: Keep[edit]

Kwanzaa – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Why do we have a page on this? I see nothing fishy/missional Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

The article as is isn't very good, but the ammount of people claiming it's a "made up" holiday and the rage it incites in certain quarters pushes it into "missional" for me. Ann Coulter hates Kwanzaa which means it can definitely be made into a fun article. ("Kwanzaa was invented in 1966 by a black radical FBI stooge") you go, Ann. Dendlai (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Per Dendlai. There's also hay to be made about the resort to Swahili, a very accessible sub-Saharan African language that has about as much to do with the roots of Africans in the New World as Italian does. (Swahili is spoken on the opposite side of the continent.) - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
What Dendlai said, I agree with it. SolPyre (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Dendlai&Smerdis+1. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Wèàšèìòìď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
What they said. "Kwanzaa is dumb, now let's go kill people at Big Box Mart over Black Friday sales!" --Ymir (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Yi Deokil | Result: Deleted[edit]

Yi Deokil – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Based on 2 refs to "nafar.com", which seems like a Yahoo! Answers-like Q&A site. One of these refs has since been deleted from this site (with no reason given, but makes me wonder why), and the Google translation of the other ref is hard to follow. I can't really find any English resources on this guy at all except us. Unless someone finds more (at least vaguely reliable) references we should probably remove this. I, for one, am not convinced we're not hosting an undeserved hitpiece here on some obscure Korean guy... Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
We wouldn't accept Yahoo! Answers as the sole reference on a living person article. We shouldn't have an article that relies solely on a similar site in Korean. This probably means the subject of the article wouldn't pass any kind of notability test. Spud (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Current refs insufficient for a bio of a living person. If he's as sue-happy as the article claims, we should consider that before using a 404 page to attack him. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 11:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
As it's also unclear where on the random/interesting nutball scale he falls, but as he seems to be more the former than the latter and with the added problem of bad ref.s, I'll vote delete. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

While the cites fail both our BLP tests and our emerging non-English sources test, he's used as a reference in this Wikipedia article. Bicycle^wheel 10:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Vaccine911 | Result: Deleted[edit]

Vaccine911 – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This is about a single page with videos that don't load and a link to a PDF that returns a 404. In addition, there is no content on our page that actually refutes anything on this website. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
That's true. The web page itself is little more than a broken link. It's really not worth commenting on. Spud (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't really do or say anything about what is really just an obscure webpage. Looks like someone came across it, wrote about it here, then moved on to something else. Bicycle^wheel 10:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Inactive AF. Twitter account last updated in 2010. FuzzyCatPotato of the No-balls Cow pats (talk/stalk) 11:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Motte and bailey doctrine | Result: Deleted[edit]

Motte and bailey doctrine – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

"terrible article about a bad neologism for "equivocation" that has any currency almost nowhere Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
All these obscure, new fallacies could be collected in one article, but do not merit their own stubs.---Mona- (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Scott Alexander/Slate Star Codex, where they would be in the list of local neologisms that no sensible person wants to write. Google ""motte and bailey" -site:slatestarcodex.com" and you'll find nothing except articles on actual castles - David Gerard (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Aneris realising how shit his own terrible articles are? Excellent! - David Gerard (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1. Reason given: Nicolas Shakel explained: "Some people have spoken of a Motte and Bailey Doctrine as being a fallacy and others of it being a matter of strategic equivocation. Strictly speaking, neither is correct". Sokal: "these texts are often ambiguous and can be read in at least two distinct ways". An equivocation by contrast is a fairly limited trick, "different meanings of a word". Anyway, it's redefined now, made falsely identical, so this doublicate should be deleted from your wiki. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Wèàšèìòìď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I was on the fence about this one for a while. Then something occurred to me: The biggest problem is not the rebranding of garden variety equivocation, it's the introduction of the word 'doctrine' in the coinage. Adding 'doctrine' creates the false impression that this is formal aspect of the point being argued, dictated from above. Pointing out a bad argument would be laudable, but introducing this coinage also includes an attempt at straw manning, pretending that there's some formal endorsement of that poor argumentation inherent in that person's standpoint. So, in essence, 'Motte and Bailey Doctrine' is a dishonest rhetorical technique masquerading as unmaking a dishonest rhetorical technique. At best, it should be a footnote on equivocation. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 12:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

So it's a junior synonym to equivocation. I get that. It's also a frequently encountered form of equivocation. The Sokal quote was a worthwhile example as well. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but this is still a neologism of no currency. Its presence here is only as propaganda for the LessWrongsphere. "Bait and switch" is closer to a term with any currency - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Given that we have an article on that Alexander guy, why not stick all of the LW neologisms there?
I don't see a problem with this page; sure, it's a neologism that's not often used, but I like it! I don't oppose merge & redirect, either. Certainly the lead paragraphs and perhaps the examples are worth keeping somewhere. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone directed my attention to this. Not sure you'll be interested in what I have to say but as the originator of the idea I'd like to mention a couple of things. Contrary to the definition with which you start your entry, a Motte and Bailey Doctrine is not a kind of equivocation *at all*. A doctrine is a body of propositions, not an argument. The whole point of my describing a Motte and Bailey Doctrine was to describe a distinctive kind of corruption that a *doctrine* (or theory, or belief system etc.) may fall into--not to describe a kind of fallacy. (For some reason, you cut off your quotation of me at exactly the point I give the description of the doctrine, leaving only the description of the castle. Perhaps that is part of the reason that the discussion on this page is not about Motte and Bailey Doctrines but confined to a way they can be exploited, namely, equivocation.) What is both clever and bad about a Motte and Bailey Doctrine is that once such once a doctrine is in place, it offers extensive opportunities for deceitful trickery in argument, of which equivocation is only one. But again, part of the point of the description is to identify the root of that trickery in the structure of the doctrine. This is why it is no defence to the diagnosis to say that one particular interlocutor has not promulgated both Motte and Bailey. That would be a defence if they were accused of a fallacy, but no defence if they are accused of making use of this corrupt structure. Of course, people have picked up the term and applied it both to the doctrines and to the argumentative trickery. Nevertheless, the central idea is all about the structure of doctrines, belief systems, theories etc and how, if set up in this way, they are the ground and opportunity for argumentative trickery, not the trickery itself. I tried to give a memorable name to the particular kind of intellectual cheating that a Motte and Bailey Doctrine is, but the cheating itself is messy, which is why it required 7 or 8 paragraphs to lay out the idea on the practical ethics blog and in the original paper in Metaphilosophy. And that takes me to my second point, which is that, quite independently of whatever you want to do with my idea, you should certainly take on board for your policy David Stove's point (in ‘What is Wrong with Our Thoughts?’) that there are indefinitely many ways of cheating intellectually and for most there is no simple way to put one’s finger on how the cheat is effected. There is just the hard work of describing the species in detail. It seems to me that the tenor of your conversation on this page is wanting to wrap things up in tidy bundles. His point is precisely that a great deal of what goes wrong with our thoughts can't be wrapped up like that. n. shackel

Merge/redirect[edit]

Add a single paragraph subsection to the Equivocation page, plus redirect. CorruptUser (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
As my goat entry says: Create an article on bait-and-switch and merge not only motte and bailey, but also milk before meat into it. Just an idea. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Those aren't the same thing. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I like SW's idea. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 15:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It belongs somewhere, if not on a page that includes that Scott Alexander guy then some page where these obscure fallacies are aggregated. What page doesn't especially concern me since we can use redirect for various appropriate pages.---Mona- (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
To the extent that this needs to stay at all, merge it into the equivocation article with a redirect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

i like the concept behind this - "spout bullshit, retreat to vague statements when challenged, Return to spouting bullshit when they leave", but it feels like this has a different name to cover it. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
In rhetoric, this has been called "equivocation" for a long time. It is possible the particular subspecies needs a name, but this is unlikely to be it - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
As indicated by my edits, I think that motte and bailey (m&b) bears more than a passing resemblance to bait-and-switch (b&s), a far more common term (though it doesn't have an RW article yet). While some of the examples are of equivocation as well, the point is that m&b/b&s doesn't necessarily involve equivocation, but simply a switch from one argument to another. Of the existing RW articles, I'd say it falls somewhere in between equivocation, moving the goalposts and milk before meat (mbm). Personally, I'd prefer a bait-and-switch article (since it also encompasses all kinds of sleazy business practices) and merging m&b and mbm into it as specific variants. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
We definitely could do with a good article on bait and switch - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a bait-and-switch, either, Wikipedia, Urban Dict. What you are doing is called rationalisation. David Gerard has redefined the term to mean "equivocation" (falsely, see above), made it identical and this is of course a good reason to delete it. I think you should pull it through and kill it off, and document once more the postmodernist bent here (also see: DG: "cut out cite to Sokal's non-use" confusing explanation with naming). — Aneris ✻ (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Note the above comment is a good example of "spout bullshit, retreat to vague statements when challenged, Return to spouting bullshit when they leave" but without being "motte and bailey" in the SSC usage - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Whatever man. Cutting out an earlier description and redefining the terms, on a wiki, with everything documented en detail, is far from "vague". I pointed you to the direct quotations from Sokal and Shakel, which were already in the original article, to begin with. You are free to reject what these people say, but then say so. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, why am I suddenly reminded of argumentum ad dictionarium...?

Anyway, consulting Merriam-Webster yields a wider use of b&s, i.e. "2: the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable" and Wiktionary has a similar extended meaning: "2. (by extension) Any similar deceptive behavior, especially in politics and romantic relationships". Oh, and we also need to keep in mind that dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive and are thus tricky to use as a clinching argument (especially since the obscure m&b term doesn't even figure in any of these dictionaries in the first place...).

I'm pretty sure I've encountered the wider notion of bait-and-switch elsewhere where it was used to indicate not simply its original meaning of fraudulent advertising, but other instances where an audience or a person is cynically tempted with one thing only to see it replaced by a less desirable alternative when convenient by the one making the initial offer. That seems to me to be the same mechanism at work in the more obscure motte and bailey doctrine too (cynically retreating to the motte when the bailey can't be defended or, conversely, moving into the more pleasant bailey when not pressed too hard). As b&s seems to be a far more well-known concept than m&b, I'd prefer to make the latter a section in an article on the former. Of course, if you think that the meanings of b&s and m&b are completely at odds, feel free to argue why (so far you've provided links, but little in terms of explanations). ScepticWombat (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Like it is with fallacies and similar figures, everything seems broadly mapped out. There are now fallacies for special subsets of strawmans (hollow man, weak man/nutpicking) and there are special terms for rhetorical tricks where the meaning or some other hidden property changes (hidden behind the words or labels, e.g. mental representations). The bait-and-switch would be a form where something desirable to the addressee is promoted, which then gets replaced once the addressee has swallowed it. This might be a case with Scientology and their religious compatiblity claim, which gradually is revealed to be false. I.e. the "attractive", easy version is front and visible first. The motte and bailey, already by metaphor, is about promoting the eccentric version (not necessary attractive one) because this is what proponents actually believe and want to spread. What is similar is that something is switched out, as in the equivocation, but the tactics and circumstances seem inverse. I have to stress that I have no objection to delete it, though. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I wouldn't object to merging nutpicking into association fallacy as a subsection either, so... ScepticWombat (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
There could be a meta article that describes the switching out of some property, with child-sections for (1) bait-and-switch, (2) motte-and-bailey doctrine and (3) equivocation. Another meta article would describe a family of fallacies such as nut-picking (weak-man), hollow man and straw man. They are also paired that way in Aikin's paper. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Chinese robber fallacy | Result: Deleted[edit]

Chinese robber fallacy – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Your fourth Anerisism of the day. Neologism from the LessWrong-sphere with no currency outside it; there may be a fallacy something like this, but this won't be its proper name and this text won't be a good article on it. Part of Aneris's SSC fan club membership application - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
You missed a great "Anerysm" pun there |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I like... being punched in the face.} 02:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Quite similar to Overgeneralization, isn't it? Dendlai (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I've never been convinced this needed its own term. If it's a product of LW NIH mindset, that explains it. Doesn't help that the examples are laughable. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 21:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know there was a conflict of "spheres". I actually hope you delete. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The only conflict is that LW/Scott's habit of neologism is pretty much always terrible - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we could have an article collecting all these "obscure new fallacies Some Guys use," but not a separate article for each.---Mona- (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Scott Alexander. Someone suggested an LW Jargon Translator on to do, but nobody who could write it wants to - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Axe it. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Nothing wrong with this page. Who says we can't we document (on-mission) neologisms? "Anerisism" or "from the LessWrong-sphere" are not valid arguments for chucking content people spent their free time writing (although the content could possibly be copied/merged in another page; not sure which from the top of my head, though). Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Anything useful can go to overgeneralization. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not an overgeneralization. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Frankenstein fallacy | Result: Deleted[edit]

Frankenstein fallacy – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Third Aneris special on this page! Bad article about a local neologism created by Aneris to prop up his other bad articles about his favoured neologisms. If this thing has a proper name put it there, if not kill it until someone comes up with an article that's an improvement on a red link David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
He's also trying to get it onto TVTropes. He's definitely on some kind of... weird mission. Dendlai (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't really know who Aneris is or why there seems to be conflict surrounding him (care to enlighten me?), but just for the sake of your discussion: he's also furthered his neologism on Slymepit, here. I'm moving for deletion since the main problem with this fallacy - aside from it not having been fleshed out even to the point of properly defining itself - is that the fallacy itself is literally an invention, and the article made by the "inventor" - meaning that we will never find any sources for our article, except for ones from other pages, looping back to Aneris. Though I suppose if the article was made into a masterly exposition on it, I'd reconsider. But for now? Meh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
He appears to be a fan of Scott Alexander here to show us the error of his ways. When he describes himself as "left-liberal", that's the sense he appears to mean it in, i.e. about what Gamergate mean when they say the same - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The Slymepit? Oh, my. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 22:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
A Slymepitter indeed. Though the posts are simply post-LessWrong jargon. So, the MRA end of the Rationalist subculture - David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
This has gone nowhere other than to circle the drain. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 22:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
If not found useful, it can be deleted. I personally don't care. What is useful is not a name, or an entry, but spotting the fallacious use. I'm not poorer when it is deleted, go ahead (count my vote always as delete in case of doubt). — Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
There's no such animal.---Mona- (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Neologism, yes. Useful concept, also yes. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, if the article is fleshed out in a qualitative and quantitative sense, and the fallacy istelf is demonstrably novel in what it describes, then I'm all for keeping it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem here is that the title is bad, and the text is also bad. Neither is worth keeping - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You may not like it, which is okay, but I don't see how it's "bad". It explains the concept, is neutral, etc. What's "bad" about it? Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I see no reason to delete this. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Gerard cites ideological reasons, namely that he (falsely) believes that it is connected to LessWrong (which for a reason known only to Mr. Gerard is very bad). I haven't the faintest idea whether what he says about LessWrong is true, but his reasons aren't rational. Orthodox rationality holds that a statement is independent from the person saying it. The ad hominem is therefore valid as a rhetorical device only, but not always a rational one. It can persuade an audience that a person is unreliable and thus their information is likely unreliable, too. That's why it was fashionable in the Days of Yore, but is today typically a fallacy since information can be independently checked and there is no need to trust or like someone. In addition, I have nothing to do with the LessWrong site, never introduced the fallacy there (for the excellent reason that I don't frequent that site) and since I've found it missing here, I simply proposed it as a new idea. I also wrote then on it's talk page: "I'm not mad when the established people don't find this one useful or fitting, but I thought I propose it." David Gerard used these various delete instances as a way to propagate falsehoods about me and to make the usual histrionic specatcle typical for SJWs to achieve a chilling effect. This is of course very different from "constructive dialogue" as falsely asserted the front page. But I recognize that it's Mr. Gerard's wiki that adheres to the ~~SPOV~~ GPOV, therefore the article should be deleted. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

There's nothing wrong with us making neologisms, but they really ought to be evidenced. This one isn't, yet. Bicycle^wheel 23:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
But there is the issue of stubs, and a lot of wacky bullsit all from the same editor. For now, it seems to me we should collect all the obscure and new fallacies into one article. Then give them their own page when and if the text on that fallacy grows so large that it's indicated.---Mona- (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a whole lot of ill-thought-out stubs is a bad thing. I like your list idea. Bicycle^wheel 11:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
We can SJW the hell out of this by filling it to the brim with those horrible "dish ish sexist but dish ishn't 'cause ahm a hypercrit" comics! Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 21:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorkatonaság | Result: delete[edit]

Sorkatonaság – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Appears to be plagiarized from elsewhere. The parts that aren't plagiarized have poor grammar and are personal rants. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 19:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, it's from 2011 and was added entirely by one person. Said person doesn't edit here anymore. I'll have to comb through their other pages, it might be a good idea to nuke 'em. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 19:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
But he has kwonledge in electronics! Bicycle^wheel 20:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

No platforming | Result: No consensus[edit]

I'm closing and locking this AfD as it's just got derailed into arguing about particular cases, rather than sticking to "should this article exist or not" and I've had enough. Bicycle^wheel 09:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No platforming – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Delete: As the original creator, please DELETE. Aneris ✻ (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Off-mission, as it's not even tangentially related to any of our mission subjects. It's also a relatively recent phenomenon to make a fuss about it, so it strikes me as too minor tobother with. Plus, as it stands, it is monumentally badly-written: "Therefore, no platforming typically violates Article 19 of the Universal Human Rights (freedom of expression, and freedom to receive information without interference)" I mean, come on. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 12:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a new reactionary snarl word when people with exteme right-wing views (of which Aneris's examples are wingnut Islamophobes and TERFs, as well as an oblique reference I bet to Christina Hoff Sommers) have their planned university talks protested to where the talks are cancelled at the request of the students who aren't redpilelrs. It's more "political correctness gone mad" and "coddled liberal safe spaces".—Ryulong (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if she's floridly wrong about something; a world in which people aren't interested in what Germaine Greer has to say is one that would seem to have lost its sense of history. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
People don't like her because she incites hate against the transgender community.—Ryulong (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I very much doubt Greer "incites hate" against anyone. The god Google has revealed to me that the "no platforming thing" seems largely confined to the UK and Oz. It's mostly about feminists whose views on transgendered people are disapproved of, near as I can tell.---Mona- (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I've read of it being used in the context of denying racists a platform (eg this article from 2014). It's not just something that sprang up around this Germaine Greer story. Bicycle^wheel 23:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Having finished doing bizarre things with Bicycle Wheel's comment and then rectifying it, I now add: Yes, I did see a few articles about "no platforming" racists. But the top results were almost all about how it's spreading to feminists who hold views on trans people that many find unacceptable.---Mona- (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It's because women like Greer are assholes and behind the times. "No platforming" is just an extension of the "outrage" against safe spaces and the like.—Ryulong (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Generally, I take a dim view of the "safe space" phenomenon, especially on campus. That said, I don't have a quarrel with refusing to host Greer. No one is entitled to a hosted venue.---Mona- (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently her talk wasn't even cancelled. It was just petitioned to be cancelled.—Ryulong (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

People don't like her because she incites hate against the transgender community. So she's wrong about something. She's an old time feminist, so I probably think she's wrong about more than just that. On the other hand, she wrote an important book and participated in a major social movement at a key point in its history, and led an interesting life back in the day. These things merit abiding respect and interest, at least for me, even if she's badly wrong about something. I don't agree with her about trans people. But I think a lot of the unease at what she says -- just like the Rachel Dolezal incident -- is because she uncomfortably reminds everybody that identity politics necessarily raises issues of authentication and authenticity that become nastier the closer you look at them. That's an inherent problem with identity politics. What I don't get is why it becomes acceptable to seek to drive her from the podium just because she does not tick all the boxes of approved opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Greer's talk wasn't ultimately cancelled. The relevance she brings to the table now is questionable when she denies the gender of women because of how they were born.—Ryulong (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
No, her talk wasn't cancelled; it's still somewhat troubling that anyone would want to. And relevance is overrated. And I find her opinion plausible, if wrong. My personal conclusion is that the state of being transgendered appears to be bred in the bone; human sexualities are complicated biochemical phenomena. I agree with Greer that sexualities are a biological fact; it's just somewhat more complicated than she imagines. What's really telling about the Greer incident is that she thinks that, despite what the Big Book of Cant says about cis/male/het privilege, the supposedly undesirable category of "woman" is something that needs policing to exclude interlopers. This too suggests the presence of heretical nuances, and is the most interesting thing about the whole argument.

And this is beside the major point, which is that lobbying to withdraw an invited speaker on the basis of their unpopular opinions is beyond the pale. The window of allowable opinions seems dangerously small. It seems faintly ridiculous to label Greer a 'reactionary'. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
TERFs are considered to be bigots for advocating against transgender rights. Greer is a TERF. Therefore, Greer is a bigot (towards the transgender community). Simply because she was a seminal feminist author doesn't mean she isn't a horrible person when it comes to transgender people. The rest of your comment seems to be the "I'm too old to understand these coddled liberal hippie teenagers" type of response to these sitations.—Ryulong (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete or change it to be something other than ramblings. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 12:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
https://xkcd.com/1357/ Typhoon (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing here salvagable about the snarl word. Hipocrite (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete: Examples and wording sound the BS alarm of the false equivalencing between "We don't want your hate speech at our venue" and "IT'S A CONSPIRACY TO SILENCE ME!!!!11!!". ScepticWombat (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
To say I hold an opinion about keep-or-delete would be lie. But if it is kept, couldn't a buncha reasonable people just do the editing the current tripe screams for? If this "no platforming" is a thing with reactionaries shouldn't we cover that? I dunno. As I say, it's hard for me to really care.---Mona- (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
If the examples used are typical of the use of the word and we keep the article, then "no platforming" is apparently a snarl word used whenever some wingnut, TERF or whatever doesn't get invited or gets "uninvited" due to an outcry from the regular attendees of whatever forum/venue it is that rejected said wingnut/TERF/whatever; thus any kept article should reflect that. PS. I would not be surprised at all to see examples of moonbats or their supporters using the same claims as they tend to have similar persecution complexes.

Yes, I have heard the argument that "We shouldn't give X a platform for her/his views", but the subtext here is actually "a(nother) platform", since it's absurd to claim that the "uninviting" of the examples mentioned means that they'll have no platform at all, simply that they won't get this particular platform.

Hell, I'll happily admit that I've made the same argument when a certain Dutch Trump lookalike was invited to the Danish "People's Meeting" (a sort of democracy and debating festival where "the people", the politicians, the lobbyists and the media can hobnob and drink beer together); first off, Mr. Crazy hairdo has jack shit to do with Danish politics, secondly, his wingnuttery shouldn't be given the implicit approval such an appearance carries, and third, I resent my tax money being spent on the heavy police protection necessary to protect this douche bag who had no business showing up in the first place. The icing on the cake was that he wasn't event the most wingnutty foreign guest: a member of freaking Golden Dawn was offered a speaking slot too, as well as a charming French dude who was too wingnutty for Front National, oh, and a bona fide Italian fascist too... (Un)Surprisingly, the latter three were all invited by a minuscule far right Danish political party called "The Party of the Danes" which apparently got a free hand to invite all kinds of crazy wingnuts, despite not having managed to win a single seat at any level of political office in Denmark, not even on local councils. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I changed my vote cuz with you and other sensible people now editing the page it's turning into something useful. And, when I googled Motte and Bailey, RW came up on the first page of results. So, we could make a difference here.---Mona- (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Eh, this is about no platforming, so what has motte and baily got to do with it? ScepticWombat (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
OMG. I swear, I've not taken any mood-altering chemicals. I'm simply so exhausted my brain is dead. Time for me to sorta just creep outta here....---Mona- (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Not an improvement on a red link - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete, if only to encourage Ruylong to get out of the basement for a while. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Hahaha, what a story Anonymous user} 05:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

~~Seeing that Ryo is now editing it and takes this to be another of "his" pages, I say delete to avoid endless bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)~~

Geez, Bubbe. That's harsh.—Ryulong (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It's hilarious to hear this from someone who started such a huge drama the moment he edited stuff related to Israel. Typhoon (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The name "Mona" is female, and I am female. In any event, I didn't found any of the I/P articles (except for Steven Salaita) and my point of view is the majority one among interested editors. The ruckus was not caused by my, but rather, primarily by two people who are currently blocked. While I may substantively often agree on an issue with Ryo (tho when I do not, I really do not), he is very unreasonable. Dealing with those "other two" as often as I do is far, far more than enough for me.--[User:-Mona-|-Mona-]] (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Changed my vote; please see my reason in Keep.---Mona- (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Keep but improve/rewrite. This is basically the same as Cordon sanitaire, which is a common tactic to exclude some of the populist and nutty parties out of the political debate. I would also support moving it to Cordon sanitaire, as this is the more common term AFAIK. The SJ stuff can be a section in this. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The SJ stuff is just right wingnuttery considering his examples of people who were no-platformed are atheist Islamophobes (Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maryam Namazie) and TERFs (Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel).—Ryulong (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
? I don't see the wingnuttery here. It's mostly (though not entirely) a neutral description. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It's only reactionaries who get "no platformed". Ali and Namazie spread anti-Islamic sentiment, Greer and Bindel are infamously opposed to transgender rights, Milo Yiannopoulos was going to talk with Bindel and he's the biggest right wing personality out there right now. Most of his sources concern the TERFs being "no platformed" outside of the two instances of Ali (who we have an article on that goes into detail about her wingnuttery) and Namazie (who apparently gets a pass for her anti-Islamic sentiment because she's an atheist like Richard Dawkins does every so often).—Ryulong (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see how your reply answered the question. So what if it only happens to cranks? Doesn't mean we can't have a page about it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Because as it stands it only affects cranks and is only a complaint from cranks and the page only describes the cranks' point of view on the subject because it was written by an unrepentant crank.—Ryulong (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Cordon sanitaire would be a good article, but it might as well be a ground-up rewrite. The only salvageable parts would be the examples and their references, and even then we'd need to expand them to include some older examples.Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 12:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
All of his examples are just TERFs (and Milo Yiannopoulos considering he was going to speak with Bindel) or Islamophobic people being uninvited from speaking at campuses.—Ryulong (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
So? The examples are still valid, no? Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
His examples are of progressive people deciding they don't want to give reactionaries audiences. I didnt know that reactionary snarl words without being explicitly defined as such were on mission.—Ryulong (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Cordon sanitaire would appear to be about something entirely different: the refusal to consider coalition governments with a political party based on its history or ideology, something that only comes up in Westminster style parliaments. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, no, it's broader than that. Although it does seem to refer to specific action by the political establishment rather than by private bodies, no it's still not the same thing. On the other hand, that makes 'no platforming' an even more pathetic complaint, as it then means nothing more than preventing groups institutions from exercising autonomy. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 16:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's effectively the same concept/idea; have two pages seems unnecessary to me, it's a choice between "No platforming" with a section on "Cordon sanitaire", or "Cordon sanitaire" with a section on "no platforming"... Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
~~Keep. An increasingly prevalent form of authoritarian bullying.~~ Please, not that asinine XKCD cartoon again. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 13:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Nothing asinine about laughing at a popular behaviour among easily angered reactionaries. Typhoon (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Obviously a contentious issue, rightly or not. It would be remiss not to cover it. The present article is weak & one-sided so will need a fair amount of work. Wéáśéĺóíď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It's weak and one sided because it only affects reactionaries.—Ryulong (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it? It seems like feminists & LGBT campaigners have said quite a lot about silencing techniques over the years. Plus haven't Gamergaters been pressuring event organisers & media to deny a platform to Sarkeesian & other critics? Щєазєюіδ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ryulong, for exposing your authoritatian thinking so frankly. Of course the situation is that the ideology that does this isn't the "good people" who block some cretins. Some no-platformed were new atheist ex-muslims, and it's precisely unimportant who someone is. This is where Ryulong and gang expose themselves as anti-democrats and anti-pluralists. They're even against the universial human rights (which is not surprising to me). If someone wants to attend an event, they can do so without interference, whether our thoughtpolice here believe they know better what's good for everyone or not. Other people in the article list may be cretins, but I only have superficial understanding about the intra-SJW-wars (which also ripped FTB apart), there are surely experts on the TERF war. I merely reported on what is true and recorded recent instances I found and went for primary sources when I could find them, not whether I like some people. So, what's broken RW, that you have a bunch of anti-science, anti-democratic, creepy thoughtpolice people stalking around who revert and flak everything that is critical of their postmodern identitity politics intersectionality racism, then claim there was "nothing" because they themselves scrub everything squeaky clean? How can you maintain your stated SPOV goals. Has science lost the science war against postmodernist ideologues somewhere and I haven't received the update? I'm fine with that, but then please. Do everyone a favour and stop lying about your alleged SPOV. In case with SJWs, there is usually only a false balance. They are a fairly unique anti-democratic lot. Aneris ✻ (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you ever listen to yourself, Aneris? We could write essays on all the buzzwords that you just used in your rant. Typhoon (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The article was rewritten and now begins with "No platforming is a snarl word used by n[e]o-reactionaries". You can see it in real time. The mere act of naming the practice, which obviously and evidently exist, is already making someone by definition "right wing". Maryam Namazie was removed, presumably, because she's one of the more liked people on the list. This is just crazy, just as your continued denial. Aneris ✻ (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You realize you're complaining that people weren't given a platform to spread what people considered hate speech and bigotry right? Just because that bigotry comes from the left and to people on the left doesn't mean it's political correctness gone mad or "intra-SJW wars".—Ryulong (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Could do with a hefty rewrite, but "no platform" is a longstanding position within the left (see here for example) and warrants examination. When decent people like Maryam Namazie get lumped in with white nationalists, something's gone wrong with the idea. Tallulah (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It might be because her stance is singularly focused on a single religion that isn't Christianity. We call out Richard Dawkins on his Islamophobic statements. Why is Namazie different?—Ryulong (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
She is an ex-Muslim. She was brought up in Iran. When it comes to Islam, she knows what she's talking about. I don't keep up with Dawkins so I can't comment on his views. Tallulah (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Most atheists are ex-whatever religion their parents were. All I know about her is what Wikipedia has and that a search engine brought up enough results with regards to her name and the term "Islamophobia". Perhaps someone should write a better page about her locally so I can be better educated on her point of view.—Ryulong (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep, but yes it needs improvement. Rename to Cordon sanitaire, widen scope and include historical perspective. This is by no means a current issue only. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm astonished by the editing process. It now lists only two names of TERFs. Gone are the other sourced recent cases, like in fascist propaganda, just remove and hide what doesn't work and spin a new story. How is this acceptable for a halfway sane, rational, person? Amazing. The project is fucked. You can't do anything about it at this point, since every inclusion of information that is not liked by authoritarians is reverted and flakked immediately. And there is no sound reason either, since Namazie and others were evidently no-platformed. Kiss the SPOV goodbye already. Aneris ✻ (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You weren't even snarky when writing this shit so how can you even be incensed that your grand vision of pointing out battles in the SJW wars is going unnoticed?—Ryulong (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Also I see the entry on Hirsi Ali was not "not platform" but "we're not giving her an honorary degree" and you neglected to post the full title of the footnote on Namazie. You do love being disingenuous, don't you?—Ryulong (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Also Namazie got her platform back apparently.—Ryulong (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Aneris, your continuous intentional misusing of words like 'fascism' and 'authoritarians' is not making you look sane at all. Typhoon (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Altemayer, The Authoritarians, The New Totalitarians Are Here, Fascism at Yale, Entartete Kunst and so on and so on. You can also have a detailled critique. It's obviousy a highly dubious practice to hide half of the cases, leave the few persona non gratas, then rewrite the story that only bad people were no platformed. Splendid. So it's basically correct what I wrote the whole time. Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, keep telling yourself how you're correct while you call everyone and their dog a fascist and authoritarian. Typhoon (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I very much doubt, Aneris, that you understand Altemeyer's fine book. While he does document some strain of Authoritarianism coming from the left, his work overwhelmingly exposes that the trait is very largely found on the right.---Mona- (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The parts that talk about the left are the only parts that matter to Aneris. Typhoon (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Damn, that Fascism at Yale opinion piece is either a facepalmingly inept analysis or an example of how pathetically perfidious sniping between Ivy League institutions can be (or possibly both...). That someone able to get into Harvard Law School is, apparently in all seriousness, equating spitting on someone with fascism illustrates a stupendous lack of understanding of ideologies, let alone a sense of historical proportions. Sure, spitting on someone you disagree with isn't a proper way of discourse or communication, but labelling it fascism shows that the one doing the labelling is either ignorant about fascism's content and lineage, or, possibly, the extent to which, in some circles of U.S. public discourse, "fascism" has joined "Nazism", "communism" and "socialism" as essentially terms devoid of content beyond being derogatory slurs against one's opponents. One wonders what Mr. Barlow would do if confronted with an actual fascist, having already emptied "fascism" of its prior ideological and historical content... ScepticWombat (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe that free speech does require, to some extent, a platform. It's as possible to functionally silence people by preventing people from listening as preventing people from speaking. This article should present the use of silencing by authoritarian governments, the massive number of instances from the right, and the significantly smaller number of instances from the left. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The issue is that "no platforming" is just "We don't want you to talk at our school now" and not at all like the concept of cordon sanitaire. It's the actions of private entities to decide that they don't want a particular guest speaker and not a government imposing mass censorship. Unless "no platforming" in the sense that Aneris intended it to be about says it's complete bullshit based on the concept of freedom of speech being misinterpreted as right to an audience to hear them (as has been the result of heavy editing by myself and Hipocrite) then the page should go.—Ryulong (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the fame of the examples used clearly illustrates that they do have a platform and the ire is simply that they're rejected from some particular platforms whose regular attendees find them distasteful and don't want their platform to help spread the views expressed by, say, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I'd agree with the hairy feline tuber if: A) The platform rejecting these people was the only platform available, or, B) All platforms uniformly rejected these people. Since neither is the case in any of the examples used, I'd say the XKCD cartoon and its conclusions wholly applies here. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If I had to dig up some slightly better examples of "no platforming", it might be the selective reporting documented in Oreskes & Conway's Merchants of Doubt (2011) in which, for instance, free rein was given by the Wall Street Journal to well-known expert for hire, Frederick Seitz, to accuse Benjamin D. Santer and the IPCC of fraud or at least unwarranted alarmism, while the responses to (read: debunkings of) Seitz's accusations by actual climate scientists involved with drafting the IPCC report were either rejected out of hand or heavily edited to remove their most salient points (pp. 208-211). ScepticWombat (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
K O M F 03:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The attitude that many people have nowadays - that if I don't like what you have to say, I should do my upmost to prevent you from saying it - is very concerning. It is the attitude, that if I don't agree with your opinions, rather than rationally addressing/deconstructing your arguments for them, I'm going to stand outside your function (or inside if security will let me) screaming. It fits in with point 3 of the mission statement ("Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism"), since it is a form of authoritarianism - a mostly powerless one, but help us if these people ever get real power. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Zack is right. As long as this article isn't hijacked as raving about teh evul SJWs it should stay. The topic is missional and pertains to a serious issue in the UK and apparently also in Australia. Certain sectors are bound to pick it up in the U.S. as well. And there's no reason the editors here would let a hijacking occur.---Mona- (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

~~A buncha smart editors are now having at the article. Also, when I google it our entry comes up on the 1st page, and we do want to be famous, amirite?~~ Having now caused the entire wiki to assume I'm drunk to the point of incoherence, I shall take my leave. G'nite.---Mona- (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Moved to Forum:No Platforming

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/EvoWiki/RationalWiki | Result: Deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/RationalWiki

Delete[edit]

FFS, yet another pointless Evowiki port. Do we really need a page for Evowiki's bland, dull article about ourselves? Bicycle^wheel 23:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
You finally got the AFD right! "Recent Changes" looked funny there for a while. Dendlai (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
another example of "porting over everything" and not anything useful if there's anything worth covering in ews article on us, put it in our own article--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't do anything, and doesn't need to be preserved as a redirect - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Compulsive hoarding? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Pointless shit. Get rid of it. Spud (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

The article itself obviously doesn't add anything new, which the template is clear about on the other hand. If the argument is made that this is preservation for posterity and that it can be seen as a part of a larger body of such, then there's no reason to delete. I'd like to hear FCP's reasoning regarding it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
His argument back in July, when we did loads of these, was "where's the harm?" Bicycle^wheel 00:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1: There is no harm. BW's page link would make sense if there was a risk of harm. It's a fucking webpage and its contents pretty much cannot hurt people. 2: I think this is comparable to preserving parts of RWW -- documenting how RW was seen by other skeptics at the time seems a somewhat useful goal. If the page isn't preserved here, it will exist nowhere and will be forgotten. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

But nobody cares wther it gets forgotten, except you. here is some useful reading on the subject of "keep everything forever." Bicycle^wheel

11:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Merp. Walker Walker Walker 00:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Chomsky rule | Result: Redirected[edit]

Chomsky rule – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Duplicate of http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Politics Typhoon (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Just Merge it with the Chomsky page.--Owlman (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Merge with Noam Chomsky is probably best. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. That's the smart thing to do. No little articles that are exactly the same as bits of bigger articles, please. Spud (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Bongolian (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This should've been marked as a duplicate, not for deletion. So; let's merge it with the main article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Merge with Noam Chomsky. FuzzyCatPotato of the Emaciated Swiss cheeses (talk/stalk) 16:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Merge with Noam Chomsky. If I am following the page correctly, this rule says that political action directed at your own government is likelier to be more effective than activity directed at foreign governments. This is a classic Miss Anne Elk theory. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Typhoon has a bit of a problem with me, hence he went for delete. But I guess the consensus is merge. I'll do that tomorrow then, unless you tell me not to. :) Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Enough with the persecution complex. Typhoon (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DONE[edit]

Is merged, as requested. The chomsky rule article can be deleted. Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Aneris[edit]

Delete: User Typhoon has marked this article for deletion and pointed to the Noam Chomsky article. I believe it's useful to record the principle (or rule) somewhere, but it mustn't be an own article.
Merge: I could copy it to the Noam Chomsky article, under politics, right above everything else, delete the double quote (mine is better sourced), and incorporate the Guardian quote. It would be indeed also a good place, since the Rule is apparently one of the chief principles Chomsky adheres to.
Keep: The downside of merging it is that it cannot be expanded in a detached manner. And the Chomsky Rule is actually more useful as a separate ethical principle that can be applied outside of the narrow context of Chomsky himself.

I don't know how you resolve this, please duke it out and let me know. Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Even after merging, it could still be expanded, and split out into its own article again, if some editor found/generated enough content to justify a separate page for it. This a wiki, you see. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I get that without the snark, was just listing the options. It seems the consensus is merge. I would then go ahead and do that sometime tomorrow. If not, let me know. Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Lee Siegel | Result: Deleted[edit]

Lee Siegel – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

talk page discussion leans towards deletion. what say you? Bicycle^wheel 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Anders Björkman | Result: Deleted[edit]

Anders Björkman – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Similar to AH's nomination of Oliver Canby (i.e. why should we care about this particular crank?), but exacerbated by the fact that, in contrast to the OC article, this one is badly reffed. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC) ScepticWombat (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah it can go. A non-notable nut job.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Notability may not be a thing we do here, but we also don't have articles on every unimportant nutjob who ever uttered bullshit because that would be both completely stupid and turn the wiki into a sea of "and this person said x stupid thing. that is all" stubs. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Why not have a page? Seems missional enough, page isn't complete shit, any "notability" is stupid. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to see it polished if only ever so slightly. In that condition, and assuming any sources can be raked up to bolster the article, I say we keep. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Looking at the site linked in the intro, I think this guy could certainly use a page. But the one we have now is really way too stubby. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:44, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Needs both to answer "yes but why do I care?" and "this is a living person article, you need to reference the darn thing" - David Gerard (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Creation Museum Visitor's Guide | Result: Seems dead[edit]

Creation Museum Visitor's Guide

Delete[edit]

This will never amount to anything but an embarrassment. K O M F 17:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
"We're waiting for someone to go there and write up here" is no way to write an article. Bicycle^wheel 19:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
WTF. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Oliver Canby | Result: Kept after rewrite[edit]

This is an archive page for an article that has been AfDed multiple times. For the most recent AfD for this article, see here.

Oliver Canby – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

I'm not sure the article should be deleted, but I need someone to convince me that this isn't just an excuse to point at a guy who obviously has some issues and laugh. Just because he has a blog and says stuff doesn't mean we need to be talking about his personal life/sex life/wacko beliefs. Please advise. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - it's about four death threats, media coverage of a court loss, the madness of the curebie movement (as I mentioned below) and not about laughing at him. He's dead serious in what he has said, and frankly that's not worth laughing at. It's worth exposing for what it is. Delusion on the levels that has much content on RationalWiki - homophobia and religion for a couple. BankBox (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If this article is about someone prominent in the "curebie movement," then I should not have been able to spend an hour editing it and never encounter that term until we get to a discussion about deleting the article. That is not how writing works. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Fuck it. Have it your way. You want it gone. It's gone. BankBox (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Author has LANCB. I doubt anybody else is interested enough to work on it. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a bad reason for deletion. AH and me (but mostly AH) worked on it. The current article is substantially different from what it was 2 days ago when the author left. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I'm going to vote "keep", on the basis that I have a peeve with the obsession on "notability", especially since we are often dealing with people and suggestions that are inherently of low notability, in a general sense. To pull an example, the article on Stars are Souls demonstrates that even nutty people can add significantly to the rich rapestry of crankery; indeed they must, in my opinion. But I'm going to direct everyone's attention to this exchange on the matter; the existence of an anonymous blog specifically targeting this Oliver Canby, and using some of the same legal jargon against him as this article does. There appears to be a tiny crusade underway against Mr. Canby, and all we know is that atleast one physical person is involved in it. I already asked BankBox if he is in fact this "The Officer" character, but he pleaded not guilty to that. But again, I'm going to toss the presence of "The Officer" and his blog into this discussion for you fine people, since you are all apparently queasy about this whole situation. All I'm really saying is that; we should figure out if there is more to this (per the link) - and just generally, I don't think we should delete on the basis of lacking notability. Besides that specific reason however, I'm quite receptive to other motivations. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I am comfortable with the current version. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Unsure myself. The guy says terrible things, but has he been noticed much outside his own blog? This slightly sets off my "making fun of the crazy person" alarm - David Gerard (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes he has. See the news coverage links of the defamation action. BankBox (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

My main concern here is one of fairness. We're already the 6th result when you enter this person's name on Google. Being on the first page in a Google result for a person's name is a kind of responsibility... Much of the material in our page is based on posts from 2010/2011, when he was 17/18 years old... Not necessarily saying we can't have a page on this guy, but the current page makes me feel uneasy... Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The core section is the 28th Amendment - that's the last few months. BankBox (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but there is (was?) also a lot of stuff from earlier... Note that I didn't say we should delete this, just that we should think about being fair, and that in 2010 he was quite young ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

What David and Carpet said. ClothCoat (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
As much as Reverend wants to rant about Notability not mattering, it clearly does because we don't cover every possible person who says dumb things - is Canby notable outside his own world and now us?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

All I'm implying is that I'm personally very much open to being convinced of the virtues of deleting said article. I just suggest that a notability claim not be the sole basis of any possible attempts to rally my vote, and I point out diligently that I'm very much in favor of entertaining the nuances of this discussion. Writing that off as "me ranting" is unconvincing, never mind uninclusive towards FCP. That being said, atleast Mr Canby is noticable enough to gain coverage from atleast one editor here (had anyone heard of this Canby fellow before?), let alone having a blog dedicated to destroying him. If that's enough, I can't say. But my vote stands for the time being. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

My problem is less the notability and more the rather personal nature of much of the material and in making hay out of the things saud by a potentially struggling individual. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I must say I'm a little concerned with that "Officer" figure and his blog. What's your two cents on comparing the style and contents of that blog and the style and contents of the article, prior to your revisions to it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hippie, if you were to say to him (and this has been done by many on his blog) that he is struggling he will totally deny it. Here's something to consider. He can be seen as a poster boy of the curebie movement (ie - those who demand autism be cured) and reflects the delusion of said movement. Just a thought. BankBox (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but the article does shit-all to say anything like that or to link him to any sort of broader context/debate/discourse about Aspies/ausitsm/neurodiversity, or anything. Not a fucking word. Instead, it's just a catalog of mean-spirited/stupid/misguided things that some rando on the internet has said. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Some of the stuff in the article might be relevant for the cross-over between anti-vaxxers and mental illness denial, but that larger context needs to be made clear. Otherwise, we just get a(n apparently wholly justified) denunciation of a crank who rants on his blog and responds aggressively when challenged, a phenomenon which is a dime a dozen on the web. There does seem to be some rather unique crankery (and crank magnetism) involved, but apart from offhand references to Wakefield and John Best, Canby's relation to/place within the larger anti-vaxx movement is never made clear and that vis-a-vis the mental illness denial crowd seems to be left entirely unexplored. Possibly, there's connection between these kinds of denialism and what seems to be a branch of fundamentalist Christian conservatism, considering his attitudes to homosexuality, the death penalty, and "liberal bias". If so, that could be the theme that ties the article together, both in terms of its internal narrative and Canby's place in the context of these larger trends. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ameriwiki | Result: Merged into Wiki[edit]

Ameriwiki – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

An out of date article on a defunct minor wiki which never went anywhere or mattered, and only has a RW article because it was a CP offshot that some of us visited. The act that so much of it is dedicated to the details of a single troll should explain the problems of covering this wiki. "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

If it warranted an article at one point then it should be worth keeping. Do we not want to give them the attention? Aleksandra96 (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Please, go resurrect every deleted article the wiki has ever had and see how well your inclusion criteria works--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

It could be merged into the wiki section with the other crank wikis. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I second this. Aleksandra96 (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd say merge this content into something else, if there's no option to just polish up this page and let it sit. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Merge into wiki. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 05:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Merge as above, prune back the office politics. Bicycle^wheel 08:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
+1 — Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Transitioning neckbeard | Result: deleted[edit]

Transitioning neckbeard – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Definition of a narrow term, best suited as a section in a larger article. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
A sentence or two in a larger article, if even that. Alec Sanderson (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Worth keeping, but as part of either TERF or a transgender glossary if we have one. Bicycle^wheel 22:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
^^What they said. SolPyre (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest something about this myth (men becoming trans to get closer to women) be added to Transsexualism#Misconceptions. I don't think the "neckbeard" aspect is particularly noteworthy. Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

A thing claimed by TERFs apparently, but not really suited to TERF. Explain the jargon more - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

If you decide to delete it can you tell me so I can paste it as a section to the correct article? Aleksandra96 (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't even understand this article ... It's like one of EvoWiki ports: full of terminology that a laymen doesn't understand. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Move to funspace and make it about badly layered facial hair. Walker Walker Walker 22:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's an anagram of "Goat nicked intern's brain." Bicycle^wheel

22:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Doxing | Result: Snowkeep[edit]

Doxing – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This is called "conversation" in ordinary circles. This is nothing remarkable or missional; just talking about someone. Walker Walker Walker 04:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Normal conversation doesn't typically involve name dropping private information about somebody to incite things against them, which is what doxxing is. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
So is the intention to incite st00f the distinguishing factor? Because discussing people's past/present/c. is pretty normal... and honestly, trying to make people mad at others is too, so I'm confused. Walker Walker Walker 04:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It also involves private information which has not been freely given. Just because I might discuss that you live at blah blah blah street in real life or work at location y doesn't mean I should be the one to reveal said information online, usually in the effort to make sure bad things happen somehow. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

This is called "a crime" in ordinary circles, this is on mission. Only someone who believes that "I know where you live" isn't a threat would call it "just talking about someone". SolPyre (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Deletion argument shows a complete misunderstanding of what doxing is, so even if it isn't missional that shouldn't be the reason to delete it. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
A bleeding obvious keep. I am not sure the VFD originator knows what doxing is.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
A lot of this wiki is about politics, which is similarly "conversation". Hertzy (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It's very often used as a tool of oppression and for silencing dissent, which makes it missional. Gooniepunk (talk) 09:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
FFS, this one stays. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
SNOW keep. Bicycle^wheel 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
If I'm allowed to vote, then keep, with the caveat that the article needs to be held to a higher standard and focus on condemning bad behavior from a rational standpoint, rather than leaving itself open for factionalism.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Only, if it's ensured, that no-one will delete information about doxxers he likes (yes, I'm looking at you, Ryulong).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
You do realize the reason I had removed them because they were added in a shitty bad faith attempt at tu quoque right?—Ryulong (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Really? Can you prove that? And even if you can, why should I even give a fuck?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
From the horse's mouth, sooo...yeah, Aneris has admitted he was adding them as a "you do it too!" at his hated, Pharyngula-loving, SJW opponents, which he has accused everyone who disagrees with his edits of being. Why anyone is humoring incredibly, blatantly, bad faith edits is beyond me. (Humoring him and debating him, fine, but pretending that his edits were anything but trolling intended to disrupt the article? WTF).KrytenKoro (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, why should anyone give a flying kurwa (swearing in Polish is fun) about his motives, when the stuff he inserted into that article was legit (the dox happened)??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Were they accurate? If so, I can't be bothered to care why they were added. Walker Walker Walker 22:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
They were added to the effect of the message "YOU SJWS DO BAD THINGS TOO" because PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson outed someone who was slandering them pseudonymously.—Ryulong (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I can honestly say I don't see why that isn't called doxxing. Walker Walker Walker 04:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The entire rest of the list was people or sites who make a habit of doxing. The only way it makes sense to include four links to a single one-off cases of someone who admitted to doxing but did not encourage a climate of continuing it is if we're including several links to every single instance of doxing. Which...if you guys want to do that, fine, I hate doxers more than the next guy, but...as someone who edits wikis, I'll tell you now it's gonna turn into a more gigantic page ten times the size of gamergate. The criteria you're setting up for inclusion is unlikely to exclude a single one of the 451,000 results that google brings up for doxing.

Honestly, and with all due respect to him, despite the fact that I thought Ryulong's specific arguments (though not actions) were made extremely poorly on that page, the counter-argument to keep all instances so long as they include doxing is pants-on-head stupidity clearly meant as pointy editing to spite Ryulong. Y'all's whole "don't feed the troll, instead debate with them so that you can develop better arguments to put in the articles" doesn't fucking work if you just let the trolls have free reign to write the pages...or to make demands about what should be kept on the pages.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
how about that WHOLE discussion is had at Talk:Doxing where it belongs? This is a VFD.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Truscum | Result: Merged with Transphobia[edit]

Truscum – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Definition of a narrow term, best suited as a section in a larger article. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not SJWiki. Alec Sanderson (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
What Alec said. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yee |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I suppose there is no fantasy like power fantasy} 22:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
K O M F 22:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Done Transphobia#Transgender people Aleksandra96 (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

As a redirect to somewhere. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

User:Aneris/SJWMedia | Result: Keep[edit]

User:Aneris/SJWMedia – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Crude, humourless vandalism, regardless of namespace, should be deleted, and that is precisely what this is. Anerwax (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

The orthodoxy here is so strong that we're deleting userspace material? Seriously? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
To provide some context: this form of "flak" is perfectly normal for the subject and comes with the territory. You could alternatively tell me what I need to remove to make it "conform". So far nobody has triedm you know, just ask me. The method so far was wholly unconstructive, aggressive and irrational (I'm sure someone will complain/mock that I mention this, too, another trick in the book) — Aneris ✻ (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing illegal or grossly bigoted on that page. No reason at all to disallow the user to post what he wants there.---Mona- (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
User space. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
User space. Also a good source of lulz. Typhoon (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
It's in Aneris's sandbox, where it belongs. There is no need for action on our part. Blitz (Complaints Box) 07:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Yuzr Spess. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 10:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Aneris' sandbox, duh... ScepticWombat (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this a joke? Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Strangely fascinating watching Aneris obsessive behaviour, and him linking to a YouTuber who considers Encyclopedia Dramatica a good source on GamerGate is hilarious, though I'm sure unintentional. OTOH, nothing of value will ever come from this. Dendlai (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I share your fascination. I'm certain that this silly request to delete will only increase Aneris' persecution complex. Typhoon (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
What if that was secretly the point, so that this his complaints of persecution could be used as future material with which to persecute him? Double mobius reacharound persecution complex! Dave Bernard (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence | Result: Keep[edit]

List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This is essentially us No true Scotsman-ing what "studying the evidence" means, and it's been linked to only twice in the last year. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete as it stands as it's simply disingenuous (I actually wanted to put it up for deletion myself but you beat me). I'm not against an actual list of scientists who became creationists and pointing out their reasoning flaws (including the non-scientists that are on creationist sites, and labeling them as such). Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed completely with Carpetsmoker. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 15:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the above comments. -gmk7

Keep[edit]

Save the snark!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Tentatively. Who is excluded from this list, if it were re-conceptualized as "list of natural scientists who became creationists after they got their PhD? Hipocrite (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
No idea. But then again, how many natural scientists "became" evolutionists after they got their PhD? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Creationists have lists (see the talk page). Not sure how much is true (SkepticWombat did some digging and most turned out not to be actual scientists), but even if it's all false this page could be a good debunking of such lists. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Keep and re-conceptualize. Hipocrite (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the two that were edit warred over that led to this - Charlie Liebert (B.S., M.B.A.)and Gary Parker (B.A., M.S., Ed.D) do not have PhD's. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Mm, I could support this renamed page. FuzzyCatPotato of the Putrefying Ectoplasms (talk/stalk) 16:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Tasty snark is tasty. Come now. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep, but I agree that the criteria are a bit unclear - what exactly does it mean to study (especially considering the rather sloppy and wide definition of study and research used by creationists, i.e. including rummaging around on creationist websites and simply regurgitating their PRATTs) and which evidence (once again, creationists have very different standards here) are we referring to, not to mention evidence for what (actual evolution, or the various inept definitions used by creationists)? However, I disagree with the hairy feline tuber that it's essentially a No True Scotsman, because it does offer the possibility of someone building a coherent argument, based on rigorous research/study of the mountains of evidence underpinning evolution etc., for creationism without cherrypicking or similar creationist tactics. Granted, I'm sceptical about the possibility of doing this and haven't seen any such arguments that don't involve such ridiculous tactics as Rube Goldberg'ish scenarios to avoid accepting evolution (i.e. violating Occam's Razor) or outright conspiracy theories to discard unwanted evidence, but keeping the option open for creationists to actually put such an argument together is part of what critical enquiry is all about (and the signal failure of creationists to actually do so is oh so telling...). ScepticWombat (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep, maybe bud off a separate article going through common creationist lists with exacting criteria. Categorise by 'not working in scientific research', 'was a creationist and stayed a creationist', 'became a creationist after giving up on a scientific career' and so forth. If that article turns out to be particularly worthwhile, copy it back over this one once we're happy with it. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 16:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep, and I feel like I should pre-emptively mirror this on my own blog in case it's deleted.

Goat[edit]

This discussion was moved to RW:DUP.

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic | Result: Keep[edit]

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

As it stands, it is a vacuous and pointless article about a children's cartoon. As it stood some time before this, it was a vacuous and pointless hit piece on a fanbase. Neither are particularly relevant to the mission. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Anonymous user, the truth is...} 03:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It was only a vacuous and pointless hit piece on a fanbase for less than 24 hours. For the past 3 years it has been a vacuous and pointless article about a children's cartoon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't get the superscript bit addressed to me with your sig? Wassat mean?---Mona- (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a lame little feature that some users persist with Mona. It picks up the user name of whoever is reading it. Just ignore. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Thanks.---Mona- (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If you could give a reason for your vote, that'd be grrrrrreat... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It's off mission promotional bullshit for yet another group of Internet assholes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Remember folks, all bronys are assholes who wanna fuck underage horses while shooting the disabled. All of them. Why are they all terrible people? Because the start of the group came from 4chan, and thus it never, ever, ever moved on and any fans regardless of where they come from became 4channers. Also I ind your deletion argument of "it's off mission!" amusing as you only think so because you got slapped down for bad writing. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Go clop off somewhere else. You're solely upset that I called the fanclub that you belong to a bunch of creeps.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Go clop yourself for doing that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

first you spend significant amount of time editing the page and defending the edits, and then, when you don't get your way, it should be deleted because it's off mission ... "If I can't have my way, just destroy it so no one can have their way" 82.95.88.48 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather the page be gone entirely than have it exist as some shit piece of praise for a shitty TV show and its god awful fans. Particularly when multiple members of this website treat my distaste for people who fanatically watch a chilren's cartoon as equivalent to actual reactionary bigotry.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
There's bigotry everywhere, not only among (purported or actual) reactionaries.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is a prime example of where we have over-reached. Apart from one episode with a dubious epistemological message to children, there is nothing here that is missional. Does the show promote pseudo-science? Authoritarianism? Is it part of the media that discusses these topics? I think we are mistaking "things that interest me" for "things that we should have an article on". This article will never be more than a collection of opinions - and will always, no matter how well crafted, reflect poorly on the wiki (barring some new development that I am unaware of). Tielec01 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
As Tielec01 said, its relevance is questionable at best. The world is full of cartoons that are just as qualified for inclusion. Vulpius (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
~~Why was it ever created in the first place? Teletubbies next?~~ Scream!! (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC) See Jerboa below Scream!! (talk)
Why did you vote if you don't know anything about the subject in the first place? What's next, a bullshit vote that tries to handwave all the missional stuff away?
Who sayeth that I don't know anything about it? Scream!! (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If you think we might as well have an article on the Teletubbies if we have an article about this show, then that conclusion does seem plausible. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:47, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Must admit that I didn't know it was so widespread - I thought it was a few North American nutters but a little research shows me they're also over this side o' the pond - MAD! But live & let live, I suppose. Everyone to their own. Scream!! (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
No connection to the RW mission, hand-waving in the lead ("attracted discussion and controversy about other topics that relate to rational and skeptical arguments") notwithstanding. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Keep. It is hardly an especially important article, nor I suspect, can it ever be. But there are missional aspects as is very clear from even a cursory glance the article. Certainly there are not grounds for deletion. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If we can cover more about how the fandom faces issues due to their like of the show without going towards Ryus extreme while mostly keeping the article about problem issue episodes and also discuss how the show is treating little children (girls, no less) like they are capable of handling subjects more complex than cookies taste good and the sun is fucking yellow, i'd love to see it kept. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If Ryu has to be de-mopped, so be it. I wouldn't oppose it this time if he keeps reverting against clear majority (as shown over time), and you are the majority view, yes?---Mona- (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Has some missional aspects to it, the current lead section described this fairly well. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Keepity keep. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:44, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Caveat: Long as it doesn't devolve into drama often. Flooding the Recent Changes page makes it easier for edits to other articles to be missed. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I used to think this was one of our better articles but, I guess, I'm out of step with the zeitgeist. It's already been butchered beyond belief in the name of RW purity so, my "keep" is half hearted. I guess because it's not about Gamergate or Zionism it has to go. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep it. --Castaigne (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't delete. Anypony can see it's missional.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Very leading to Keep it, For who someone (Aka Clueless/Native/Immature/Walking living Sterotypical Bronies cant accepted facts there fanbase is still unintended flaw and semi-irrational (And also thanks to David Genard to undo this deletion insanity).--70.61.121.86 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep. It covers some of the BS over the show and the BS over the fanbase. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"Radically" keep, People in this site who are acting self-claiming Anti-bronies are almost oblivously closted self hating bronies need to stop this just because it have flaws and STRONGLY HYPOCRITICAL (Being extremely irrationally immature) to cant accepted what they are if they better to Exspelled Ryūlóng (琉竜) and other Self hating bronies out this site for few month and block them from ever touching that page, Just please...--98.27.29.192(talk) 01:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep it. We need articles around here whenever we can get them. I just skimmed through it, and I think it's alright. Addressing cultish/conspiracies, whatever is a good thing, and this, ahem, particular topic fits the bill quite nicely. You need a really good reason to delete something, and this isn't one of those cases. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The word "cult" as colloquially used is very pejorative. Sociologically the fandom could be a species of cult and also be entirely benign. The core of the substantive dispute seems to be about benign v. malevolent. Documentation is necessary either way, but especially for any sexual deviancy claims---Mona- (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The show considered just as itself probably wouldn't support an article. The cultural phenomena surrounding the show, and the barmy, doctrinaire stuff that's been read into it as a result turn it into something missional. And fortunately, that's what the article is about. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, keep. Smerdis of Tlön is right that there is a sociological aspect to the whole fandom thing that makes it worthwhile, and Pbfreespace3 is correct that we do need articles around here. Documentation is key, however, and claims of depravity must absolutely be credibly sourced.---Mona- (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

If we could cover more about how the show is treating children like they can actually handle concepts more complex than yellow is the color of the sun and deal with issues like when it supports wooish concepts, i'd be happy with just a small section on the fandom controversy. I have no idea how to write that and so just worked with this version.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm undecided and somewhat apathetic. But if forced to comment I'd say the triviality of the topic combined with dubious missionality, and then adding the shitfest factor, all points to deleting. Having this much sturm und drang over a goddam cartoon show is just not worth it. But I'll watch the arguments pro and con.---Mona- (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. Though I'm currently leaning towards keep (as argued here and elsewhere by Paravant and CarpetSmoker). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Sociologically, it is interesting that young adults have appropriated the cartoon and constructed an audience cult around it.

As I say, I'm undecided and have no strong opinion either way.---Mona- (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to note the inherent flaw in the show. It's not titled "My Little Goat" ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
A sage observation indeed, if keep gets up (which it almost certainly will) a section of the article must be devoted to such obvious speciesism. Tielec01 (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Jerboa[edit]

Here comes the most inane proposal yet: How about we have a bare to the facts article and link to one "all hail the almighty brony" essay and one "unabashed hit piece" essay written by our trusty Ryu? I know this proposal is stupid, but someone had to make it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
This one actually makes sense. K O M F 01:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
HATE to agree with Avenger but ... Scream!! (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I completely do not care, unless all warring parties think it's the best idea ever and would end all editing disputes; in which case I am militantly in favor.---Mona- (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't care that the vote is settled. I just had to pet this Jerboa anyways. And besides, Avenger and Mona under the same banner? Peace in our time! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You forgot me!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
My bad old timer! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Alicorn![edit]

Alicorn privilege is actually a serious issue in Equestria, or so I've heard. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:44, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Neolithic Revolution | Result: Keep[edit]

Neolithic Revolution – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Such a gigantic hit piece that verges so close to going "agriculture evil", only a full burn might fix it "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Presents one fringy side of an alleged debate as fact. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

The fact that the invention of agriculture led to a huge increase in the scope of inequality in human society and had an adverse impact on human health is mainstream archeology. This relates to just about everything from global warming to "patriarchy". It does give the lie to the meta-narrative of Progress and the notion that technology improves the human condition, but that can't be helped. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I vote for keep. The neolithic revolution is important for so many reasons. First of all, it occurs before the low end of the young earth timeframe. It is an example of how adaptability and technology drives change, not deities. It is the beginning of us genetically modifying animals and plants around us en masse via artificial selection. It also marks the beginning of evolutionary selection for cross-species pathogens (intelligent design, indeed). It marks the birth of the temple cultures, in which there was more food being produced than being eaten, leading to the invention of the "ordained minister", able to manipulate those around him for his and their mutal reward. It also marks a point in time where heaven arguably had enough of a civilization to work with somewhere on earth that waiting another 5-8000 years to communicate its lessons via human sacrifice looks even crueler still. It is also a period brought up revisionistically by various cranks, from stone age diet pushers to global warming denialists. And so on. It needs work right now, yes, but this is a clear keeper to me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd like the article to say things more like "here's what experts say about this" and less "this is how it happened", but overall I agree with much of it. Agricultural civilizations obviously have their advantages—How else would we ever have gotten to modern levels of technological advancement?—but they have notable downsides too and I think pointing those out is relevant to our mission. Though perhaps the article could say a bit more about the positive effects. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Could be improved, but not shitty enough to delete. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I must say, this article failed to convince me of its thesis that all this was a terrible idea. Essayspace? - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Essayspace. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a shit essay, not a shit article. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The denialism is strong with this one, I think. It is quite mainstream anthropology and archeology that the adoption of agriculture during the Neolithic led to the rise of very different societies, much more divided by wealth, rank, and class. It is mainstream science that these societies produced a class of priests and a different kind of god. It is mainstream science that these much more hierarchical societies gave rise to a caste whose profession is violence. They expanded male social prominence at the expense of women. They gave rise to our ~~first~~ second (First was the collapse of the big game hunting cultures such as the European Cro-Magnons and the North American Clovis culture after the mass extinctions they caused) crisis of ecological sustainability, and historically we've never handled those really well. These bits of mainstream science all strongly implicate core concerns of the website's mission. Unfortunately, they also paint an unflattering portrait of human nature, and I suspect that's the actual problem. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Scott Barnes | Result: Deleted[edit]

Scott Barnes – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Needs sources, bad. Asserts conspiracy theories. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
This has numbers where footnotes should be but no footnotes. A clear sign it's been badly copied from another wiki (I can't imagine which one). Spud (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Source or destroy Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

I thought I recognized the name, it's some dude whose elaborate plan to make Perot win in 1992 backfired. Maybe not worth an article but I think there's potential. 99.46.25.47 (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Angus King | Result: Deleted[edit]

Angus King – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

not missional, stub Bongolian (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, anonymous user. We don't want articles on every single US senator that are each one six word sentence long. Don't make any more. Spud (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Susan Collins | Result: Deleted[edit]

Susan Collins – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

not missional, stub Bongolian (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
At six words long, it wasn't even worthy of the name "stub". No indication of missionality, I;ve nuked it already. Spud (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Kim Davis | Result: Moved to Conscientious objector to same-sex marriage Same-sex marriage resistance[edit]

Kim Davis – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Literally 15 minutes of shame. in a year or two this article will be just as stubby and few will remember she exists, just like what happened to our Joe the Plumber article. At best a mention in our Gay Marriage articles US section for post-ruling resistance would be required for her. "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I created this article because I thought it was relevant, and I think there's a chance she's gonna be more than just 15 minutes. Nevertheless, I would support moving the article text to the article about same-sex marriage. Spaceboyjosh (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 14:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I highly support working on this article and making it into a snark goldmine. There's more than plenty of news sources on this woman and her antics (perhaps oddly). I mean, come on. She acted injustly and beyond moronical for the sole reason that the woman is so religious, she can't even tell the difference between her ass and a hole in the ground. Though it's possible she could be baked into a gay rights article without problem, which I'd also support. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Move to a suitable name. From the to-do list, there's at least slight interest. Also, she's still looking for stuff to fuck up, this isn't over - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree with David. Not over, still ongoing - keep for now. --Castaigne (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep for now, we do this kind of stuff - Cliven Bundy is another example. Whether the topic has legs is a matter for the future. Bicycle^wheel 18:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep. She's a religious fanatic who think her religious views should exempt her from certain regular duties of a public official. That's exactly the sort of thing this wiki should cover.---Mona- (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I think we should probably have an article about the specific controversy that made her momentarily famous, though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:41, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'd not be opposed to that either--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

^ That. This has also happened in other countries by the way (although in a less ... crazy way, AFAIK) Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm with this idea. --Castaigne (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Or, an article about people refusing to do their optional job, when accommodation should be made, and when it shouldn't. Merged with the ideas of pharmacist and cashier who have to scan pork.
—The Great and Humble Shawn (the Humanist)^{Talk to me} 12:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this. She isn't the only one, not even the only one in Kentucky. In Kentucky, there's also clerks Casey Davis (unrelated) and Kay Schwartz. ^{— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs}

Can anyone think of a good name for such a page? Conscientious objector to gay marriage or Conscientious objections to gay marriage is a bit of a mouthful, but the best I can think of... Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Gay Marriage opposition? Gay Marriage Reactionary?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 05:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Should be rewritten without liberal bias. She's just practicing her religious beliefs, I support gays but they could go elsewhere. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Much of the content on this site has a "liberal bias"... Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Which is why I prefer Conservapedia. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Lol. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:53, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Should be rewritten without a reality bias. She's just practicing her hypocrisy. Bongolian (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Twelve-step program | Result: Redirect to Alcoholics Anonymous[edit]

Twelve-step program – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Is there enough material to cover this separately from Alcoholics Anonymous? Based on a glance at the WP page, I think we can just direct to AA? Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I vote for merging any and all useful content from Twelve-Step Program into AA, and then making it a redirect to AA. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The AA article already has all the content in the current 12-step article. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
In that case, I vote to axe this article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

John Grant | Result: Deleted[edit]

John Grant – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Expand or remove Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This was about the stubbiest stub I've seen so far. You could say: this article needs to actually be written before it can stay. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
In four years no one has seen fit to expand on this, so delete until somebody comes along and wants to --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Missional, might have some good quotes FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 05:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Pretty damned missional, no reason not to note - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Biola University | Result: Keep[edit]

Biola University – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

~~Meh --Cosmikdebris (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)~~
Try to actually follow the AfD directions in the future.--TiaC (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

In the situation that the below goats are all adressed, and within a reasonable timeframe, I vote keep. If not, baaaaaah! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I suggest waiting a fortnight. If nothing is done to improve the content, axe it, but put a note about its potential missionality on its talk page first, so it's there if and when a proper article is (re)created. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Missional. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
It deals with the themes of the mission, just needs expansion. Tuxer (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

While possibly missional, it's not there yet.--TiaC (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Definitely missional as it's the den of William Lane Craig and thus the base of his credentialist claims about being "a professional philosopher" (though he has now also become a colleague of Lee Strobel at Houston Baptist University, HBU, a fundie school of a similar cut to Biola). However, if the article is not expanded, this stub can and probably should be deleted. If fleshed out, and especially including references to Craig, I'd definitely vote for a keep. This is one of Rationalzombie94's spree of fundie school stubs that actually has special (if currently only potential) merit as would an entry on HBU. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
A resounding "meh" - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Missional: probably, like this: meh ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I rewrote this article, starting with the basic sourced material. I think it is now a nice stub that can be expanded. Can we close the AFD? --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Botany | Result: Merged with Biology[edit]

Botany – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Non-missional and fairly uninformative Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Keep and improve. Plant taxonomy and genetics support the modern view of evolution. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Which is IMHO more appropriate in either Evolutionary biology or Evolution of plants, rather than a Botany page Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
1. ~~Is missional. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)~~
Support structure for evolutionary articles - David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep'n'expand, yo. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Whatever the fate of this, the zoology article should get the same. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Merge botany, zoology, ecology, physiology, taxonomy, biophysics into the biology article. Many stubs may create something useful. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
+1 Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hanne Tolg Parminter | Result: Keep[edit]

Hanne Tolg Parminter – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Non-public, non-notable person. Does not deserve to have the first of the few Google results on her name return an encyclopedia-like entry calling her "batshit crazy", "islamophobe", "crank", "anti-immigration advocate", "racist", "authoritarian wingnut" and "nationalist". RW is being used as an attack site. Slimy goop (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Keep. She has been a subject of a high profile controversy (eg. [2]) and is one of the most active and one of three highlighted/staff bloggers (now full time apparently) on the well known anti-Muslim/anti-immigrant blog Document.no. There she writes about all the crimes that Muslims and other "immigrants" commit and so on. She has a high profile, under her own name, in the Norwegian blogosphere, with numerous articles by her on Document.no, the largest Norwegian anti-immigrant website/blog/forum. Millicent (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Daily Post is not a high-profile newspaper. Besides, the article doesn't even mention her name, so you're drawing your own conclusions. Document.no is critical of Islam, but can hardly be called islamophobic in the same way as Gates of Vienna or Fjordman. You're welcome to provide specific quotes of what she has said or written (with citations) that you deem to be islamophobic. --Slimy goop (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Document.no is considered to be Islamophobic by countless sources, several of which are cited in the article, and is also high profile with extensive media coverage in Norwegian and international media, and a significant readership. It's not simply "critical of Islam" (in the sense I and other non-racists and atheists may be when it comes to certain aspects or religion itself), it's specifically anti-Muslim. While the Daily Post didn't mention her name, she has outed herself as the person in question in an article on Document.no (per the references section). Millicent (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Please provide references here to reliable and easily accessible sources that deem Document.no to be islamophobic. References to obscure books by obscure authors are not sufficient. Anyway, she is not Document.no, she's simply a writer on the website. Different people hold different views. She doesn't necessarily agree with everything that has ever been written there. --Slimy goop (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Just read the Wikipedia article on document.no. Anders Breivik went to some "Friends of Document.no" party. It's very clear our article is missional and relevant.---Mona- (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, Mona. Norwegian Centre Against Racism deems Document.no to be borderline islamophobic. I trust that organization, so I'll agree with them. Still, the article here on Hanne Tolg (and on many others) is going overboard with nasty labels, and it has an impact on someone's life. For heaven's sake, the article comes out top on Google search on her name! --Slimy goop (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
That particular article has been heavily edited by supporters of the website who naturally try to whitewash it as much as possible, and the history shows much back and forth. Norwegian newspapers have written about Islamophobes waging a war on Wikipedia in articles like that one to portray racist Islamophobia as legitimate [3]. Millicent (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It is an "anti-immigrant forum which has evolved into a hotbed of galloping Islamophobia" Aftenposten). It is "a website rife with anti-Muslim and hard right rhetoric". (Financial Times) "There are also citizens' websites like Document.no, where Anders Behring Breivik left racist, extremist right-wing comments along with fellow anti-Muslims, and there were attempts to start up Norwegian satellite groups in support of the English Defence League" (BBC) And according to Norway's most prominent humanist, Lars Gule, it is "a far-right web forum" that is "dominated by Islamophobic and anti-immigration commentary" (per ref section of the article on the site). An official report of the Norwegian Police University College cites it as an example of an "extremist website" alongside Stormfront and Gates of Vienna (the report here on the website of the Norwegian central government[4], p. 28). Millicent (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep. She's certainly something of a deal in Norway and a good example of the Islamophobic crank. No reason at all to delete.---Mona- (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Keepity keep. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:26, 8 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Deletion argument is unconvincing. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
An underreasearched tabloid opinion piece in Norway doesn't really warrant an iota of change here at RW. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I'm a bit aprehensive about some of these articles created by Millicent. This morning I (coindicentally) stumbled on Mona Levin with some pretty strong claims and no real references to back it up, and I couldn't really find any references, either. The article's a bit toned down now, but I still see few references and fairly strong claims (also see talk page). For Document.no, we write that it's "Islamophobic and extremist" and that it "strongly promotes racism", but on the other wiki I read that "the Norwegian Centre Against Racism considers it only borderline"... So, meh ... Since almost all resources (if any) for these claims are in Norwegian, it's very difficult for me (non-Norwegian) to vet these claims, but I fear we're (and by "we", I mean Millicent , since he/she is the only one writing these articles) going a bit over the-top here. It smells too political. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"these articles created by Millicent"? I did not create this article. The Wikipedia article on Document.no has been the subject of constant attempts to whitewash the website as its history shows, and is some sort of compromise now between Islamophobic editors and normal editors, but RW is not Wikipedia, not NPOV, and not an encyclopedia, and I don't see the point of selectively citing the quotes in Wikipedia that the website's supporters have added to the article. The Wikipedia article also includes many other opinions which clearly describe it as Islamophobic. Also, for the record, Millicent is a female name. Millicent (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"RW is not wikipedia" doesn't mean anyone can just say anything we want on any article. It has to somehow, you know, reflect reality in a vaguely reasonable ("rational") way. Slapping "islamophobia!" (or similar terms) on everything is just damn silly. Again, I'm not saying these people aren't Islamophobes, just that it's hard to judge (for me), and in at least 2 cases it seems it's rather exaggerated. Criticism of Islam (even hash criticism) is not the same as islamophobia. Same with (strong) Israel opponents: these people are not necessarily racist. This actually hurts our cause, by the way, since people who don't agree with us will probably just dismiss a page out-of-hand if it starts with erroneous or dubious snarl words... Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The article on Document.no, and the article on Hanne Tolg Parminter (which I did not create), both include several solid references, quite a few of them in English, that clearly show that Document.no is a large and well known (or rather notorious) Islamophobic website, mainly concerned with writing negatively about Muslims and immigration. Where have I said criticism of Islam is the same as islamophobia? I've said the exact opposite. I can't see that either of those articles exaggerate anything or contain anything "erroneous", on the contrary they are well sourced and fact-based. The criticism of Document.no has been very harsh in mainstream media and scholarship for many years, and it would easy to find a whole bunch of other references that describe them as racist and Islamophobic, but it wouldn't really add much to the articles in question since that has already been established quite thoroughly. Millicent (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Just tossing in that: 1. It's generally best not to use references in a foreign language not accessible to the vast majority of English speakers, and 2. I don't care if WP thinks a site is "borderline." They go thru the same political tugs of war we do here and all that may mean is that this "compromise" language won out. Based on what is documented at the RW article, I'm reasonably persuaded Document.no qualifies as Islamophnobic, even excluding the Norwegian references.---Mona- (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It stands at 6-1 to keep the article. What happens now? Can we remove the call for deletion at the article page?---Mona- (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted, to those who do not read Norwegian, that Millicient and Mona represent quite extreme positions and seem to use RationalWiki for their own personal vendettas. Both Mona Levin and Hanne Tolg are respected writers. Writers with views, but nothing that warrants the vitriolic language used in these articles. I still support deleting the articles. At least, this page should be kept to document that someone asked some questions Megad (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Open source | Result: Keep[edit]

Open source – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Do we really need this? The missionality is doubtful, and this article is just plain boring... Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Nah, there are many cases of corporate hijinks against open software, open software is, at least partly, a matter of consumer rights, so keep the article, rewrite it, perhaps.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Corporate hijinks indeed. Open source has its own set of problems, but it is a countervailing force against centrally planned bureaucratic cluster fucks. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Needs fun! Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 16:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Assuming someone fun remodels it in his own image - keep. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance | Result: Keep[edit]

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Off-mission fancruft stub. Deletion was discussed previously & supported by most editors apart from the article's author (see talk page). Nothing has been done to expand, improve or make it relevant in the eighteen months since. Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
~~May perhaps be missional. I haven't read it. But the current stub doesn't add much ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)~~
~~No debunking present.~~ αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk)
~~Yeah, hard to find a truly missional reason to keep this one (as FCP put it above), even in the event that the article wasn't a stub. Which it is.~~ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Well, I'll be. That revision dug up by Alec Sanderson seems like something we could salvage. Never mind that it's being tossed around as "the world's most widely read book on philosophy". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
^ That. The reason the older version got removed is because there were no references and the author threw a fit when this was pointed out ... :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
See RBS above. FuzzyCatPotato of the Pornographic Tofus (talk/stalk)
Revert to Sanderson's version. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to see the current "See also" kept. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Go nuts. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks like Paravant took care of it. Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
One of, if not the most influential New Age book. We definitely need an article on it, and it looks like the most glaring issues have been resolved. --Ymir (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe that part of the point of the page is that it's not a new-age book but often perceived as such by people who haven't read it :-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
That's the case even among quite a few people who have read it but didn't quite pick up on what it's saying, as the article says. Personally I've seen numerous people, often sympathetic to some kinds of woo, talking about how the book changed their lives. Maybe my comment would have been more accurately worded as, "A book that has had a strong influence on the New Age movement even though it doesn't really advocate New Age ideas, something a lot of readers didn't pick up on." --Ymir (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

There is an older version with some more missional bits. Alec Sanderson (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Internet relay chat | Result: Deader than ARPA[edit]

RationalWiki:Internet relay chat – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

It's an IRC technical manual, and not on-mission. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Stuff in RW space isn't necessarily missional the way mainspace should be, this objection doesn't hold - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Not used. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Is the RW IRC still used by anyone here? - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would imagine not.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  - I would hope not. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite so it's about how this site's IRC is/was used, rather than a write-up of what IRC is in all its detail. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would that be that interesting or useful of an article...?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  - It's not in the article section, it's in the Rationalwiki section. Flannan Isle (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    - That doesn't man people would be interested in it --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
      - Sorry, I meant that there may be different standards for inclusion. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Death death death? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Building permit | Result: Deader than the dinosaurs[edit]

Building permit – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Stupid. Barely missional. Without the DAL stuff, a stub. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Merge DAL stuff into Kent Hovind, then delete - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fun:Media | Result: Deader than traditional journalism[edit]

Fun:Media – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Bad humor. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Boring as all hell. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Move to redspace - David Gerard (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
This was created by someone called StupidIdiot, who looks like he lived up to his name. Flannan Isle (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Poetry | Result: Deader than Hemmingway[edit]

Poetry – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Dictionary definition, and doubtful misionality Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Die. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Ugh, poetry. I think there's plenty of bad stuff to say about it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:49, 7 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Conservapedia:LA Times article of June 19, 2007 | Result: Kept as a historical artifact[edit]

Conservapedia:LA Times article of June 19, 2007 – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This is a badly formatted, stalkeresque piece of shit that will never help anyone in any way. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It even links back to itself in Wikipedia style Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
That's because there were once two articles on the subject which were merged & somebody obviously forgot to remove the link between them. I've removed it now. Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
~~Unless we plan to make it better, yah. At the least get rid of our commentary, which is just pointless horn-touting for some users.~~ --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

An important piece of Conservapedia's & RationalWiki's early history. Wëäŝëïöïď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Then put it as a section I said articles' pages, rather than as its current incarnation -- a shitty intro followed by a creey list of people mentioned. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I cannot see how we can make this article "better," given that it appears to have been some sort of forum page. However, that being said, this article is vital to understanding the earliest roots of RationalWiki and our link to CONservapedia back in the day. With that being said, I strongly favor "keeping" it regardless of whether or not improving it is possible. Gooniepunk (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
this is a big part of CP and RW's early history. It wasn't even mentioned at the Great CP Article Purge, though. Bicycle^wheel 13:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
To me, unless it's made extra obvious it's being kept around as a museum piece, the best solution would be to keep it in the sense that we merge and absorb it into the larger Conservapedia (or RationalWiki) article. (And/or keep a Fun or Archive or something version around as a museum piece...?) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Well Conservapediaspace is effectively a museum these days. WIGO CP is the only active page in the whole space. Bicycle^wheel 16:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Of historical interest for the wiki. Keep. --Castaigne (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

This article is literally one of the few pieces of press RationalWiki itself has ever got ... so it might be something to keep around for history. I dunno - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy with it being written better, mostly. Being an ancient article with importance to our history is no excuse for shoddy writing. Even more that it's one of our few mentions. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Having trouble telling how many people here want the article preserved and incorporated into the RW/CP articles or preserved as is. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I make it four keeps (Weaseloid, Goonie, me, Castaigne) and two merges (you and Percy). Bicycle^wheel 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Niche | Result: Keep[edit]

Niche – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

~~Off Mission, one (dictionary) reference. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)~~
~~This seems to be missionless. Bicycle^wheel 09:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)~~

Keep[edit]

Was a nice read. Could use more content. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:50, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Ecological niches are actually something worth covering. They are one of the specific drivers of evolutionary change, as when the same species splits to different niches (as was the case with the one kind of finches that blew to the galapagos islands) they begin their beak size selection and eventually ended up with as different species. This was quite literally because they mated within their niches - branching out as the galapagos finches. So, important, though stub and could easily be moved to an article on ecology, on evolution, etc. It doesn't need to be stand-alone afaik. Could easily just be a redirect with the text merged to the proper main article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Articles discussing basic concepts of evolutionary biology are missional, especially if our mission includes preserving and curating material from EvoWiki. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Expand it a bit, but otherwise ok. --Castaigne (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Part of the general scientific backup stuff we have on evolution, so not irrelevant - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure we can find a place for this. Bicycle^wheel 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

FBI biometrics database | Result: Deleted[edit]

FBI biometrics database – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Woefully out-of-date stub. Unless someone takes the time to update this we should probably just remove it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete it as is. Or expand/rewrite if anyone is interested in doing so. ωεαşεζøίɗ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't see the missionality. Kill. --Castaigne (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Expand and update it or kill it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps merge the admittedly very stub contents into the DNA article, the FBI article, or something of that kind? If no use can be found and no user willing to input work can be found either, I'd say axe it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Note that this article is about *plans* for some database. It's not at all clear to me if this actually got implemented, and if so, what. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't deserve its own article, unless there are conspiracy theories about it or something. If not, a sentence in FBI will do. I wonder how Conservapedia's FBI case is getting on? Bicycle^wheel 19:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Merge with some other FBI article, expand, update with new conspiracies, userfy, or just nuke it from high Earth orbit. --Sockpuppet of localhost (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Basic science | Result: Deleted, Unanimous vote.[edit]

Basic science – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

It's a dictionary definition, and has been for many years ... Unless someone makes this page worthwhile I see no reason in keeping it... Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Off with its head! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Redirecting to science is the only logical solution. That's just basic science! Bicycle^wheel 19:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I support making it a redirect to Science. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
How did this survive for so long? O.o 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:37, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
There are loads of crappy stubs flying under the radar. Eventually one gets randomarticled by someone who cares enough to do something about it. Bicycle^wheel 19:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Check Special:ShortPages if you want to blitz a few microstubs. A lot of what shows up on there are fork pages, though. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Content is just a basic description that has a low chance of improving and should be killed. --Sockpuppet of localhost (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Very informative. Now, how many feet make two meters? Spud (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Ban Bossy | Result: Deleted with extreme prejudice[edit]

Ban Bossy – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

It's shit. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
It's an interesting topic to discuss, perhaps even say some missional stuff about in an article. Just not this current article. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:47, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
If it's true as the article claims that [this] has "recieved enormous amounts of criticism", it should be easily beefed up to full size. If that is true. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
It received a moderate amount of right wing criticism. Not like "trigger warning" or "politically correct" levels of losing their heads, but... really only hitting a few actual publications. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Still worth to have a page on IMHO. But obviously not this turd. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Wẽãšẽĩõĩď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fallacy misidentification | Result: Redirected[edit]

Fallacy misidentification – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Stub entry retreading fallacy fallacy with a rather weak & awkward example ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
What Weasel said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much redundant to Fallacy fallacy as above, and deserves only to be a sentence or two in that article. Bicycle^wheel 19:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Either redirect (I'm not sure it's identical) or kill - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Nuke from high Earth orbit; just a few cryptic examples of fallacy fallacy, which I've never heard of. --Sockpuppet of localhost (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Merge. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
So wait, how exactly does this relate to fallacy fallacy? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:48, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Science programs at Young Earth Creationist colleges | Result: Delete[edit]

Science programs at Young Earth Creationist colleges – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The article, as written, appears to be copypasted from internet sources with no sources or attributions at all. The material relevant to RW's mission is adequately covered (more or less) in the linked articles. This page reads like a college essay and should be moved to the essay space or deleted as superfluous. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I have tried my best to make this guy's stuff readable, but for a guy whose only role here is to crap on sub-par educational institutions, he cannot write at anything near a decent level. I would shed no tears over this article, or any of his others, being nuked until somebody with an interest and basic writing skills comes by. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. Get rid of this crap. Spud (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

RW needs an article (at least silver quality) on this subject. The leg work needed to bring it up to that standard is perhaps beyond the reach of our current staffing level. For example, Patrick Henry College does not appear in the article. Their catalog is available online, but it is cagey about what the few biology and geology courses actually cover. I knew a family who was proud of the fact that their daughter was going there— not foaming loonies, but apparently decent folk raising a brood of smart accomplished kids. I don't think I will be grilling that one about how much baraminology she had to read, or how the fountains of the deep fit into her stratigraphy studies. Without that kind of specific info, this article is doomed _{DOOMED, I say} to trickle along as a list of superficial pointings and supposings. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Al Quds day | Result: deleted 10-4[edit]

Al Quds day – (View AfD)

Please see Jeremy Corbyn talk page[edit]

Especially beginning with the section "Al Quds Day videos" and then the section about something or other being "Bowlderized." Avenger has had his sysop status removed and cannot cirumvent the block on the Corbyn article. So, he's trying to get what he wants embedded in a link to an al Quds page he just created today and then asked an UNinvolved, innocent user to embed it for him. This is bullshit antics. Read the Corbyn talk page to see why. If the al Quds article isn't deleted, well, we can just start having an edit war over that! (But I won't do it until I've finished the Zionism draft.) ---Mona- (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Axe-grinding without relevance to mission. MaillardFillmore (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The article is Avenger's attmept to have his rejected edits linked to on the Jeremy Corbyn article. His sysop status was removed for reason and he so can't make the edits on the Corbyn page. A consensus -- or near consensus -- rejecting Avenger's edits and antics is all reflected on the Corbyn talk page. So, today he created the al Quds page and asked an uninvolved user to embed his tendentious al Quds link on the Corbyn page (which the user did and I promptly removed). tl;dr: The al Quds article was founded in bad faith and should be deleted.---Mona- (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC
Mona first of all your contribution was in the wrong section (thanks for correcting that). Second of all the faith in which an article was created is not grounds for its deletion. And thirdly would you please kindly refrain from dragging one discussion across myriads of pages. It has gotten people angry at you in the past. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Words do not describe how black you are calling the kettle right now.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Mona is constantly dragging a discussion across multiple pages which makes it impossible to follow for all but a few people, usually those that are most involved. I don't really know why she does it, but she should refrain from doing so. I don't know what the kettle thing is supposed to mean though. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a well known idiom that means you are accusing somebody of something that you are also guilty of. Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Google "pot kettle black idiom" and be amazed. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well for reasons passing understanding I don't know all idioms in the English language. Also, when did I drag a discussion of something entirely unrelated into Afd? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Could you please provide even a semblance of a reason for your opinion? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
If there is no policy that prohibits votes on Afd without any reason provided, there should be. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
There indeed is no such policy. If you wish to change that, feel free to make a proper proposal on a more appropriate page. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Redo from scratch. While the topic is relevant to RW (as an example of officially sponsored anti-Israel activities with strong anti-Semitic strains, the latter being the missional bit), the current incarnation reads like a wingnut view of the Middle East with Iran being Ze Evulz Maztermind behind everything, replete with Munich-style suggestions of Western appeasement & betrayal as the reason the Tehran regime didn't collapse in 2009 (as if Western support would've done anything beyond discrediting the opposition as collaborators and foreign agents). It's also kind of hilarious to see the Shi'a being touted as the bogeymen of the Middle East when those fundamentalist Muslims that pose the greatest threat to everyone not sharing their particular faith are actually the extreme Sunnis. Even more bizarre is trotting out the Houthi rebels in that shell shocked crater, Yemen, as anything but one of numerous warring factions in that hopeless country which is now being bombed back beyond the stone aged and blockaded into starvation, courtesy of what has for decades been a far more destabilising force in Islam and the Middle East: Saudi Arabia. The Shi'ites' major black mark at the moment is their short sighted and vindictive Baghdad regime whose marginalisation and persecution of the Sunni minority for its support for Saddam's decades of dictatorship helped prepare the ground for the likes of ISIS. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Blacke (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete and start over, preferably written by absolutely anyone else - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Lemme on the bandwagon, will ya? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Tiresomely equates support of Palestinian rights with anti-Semitism. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 00:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
You do know who created the Al Quds day and when, right? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Genetic fallacy? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:34, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I think the WP:TNT approach which David cited is the right approach here. I do think there is a missional article to be had, but cannot see any way the current article can be re-written to achieve that in an acceptable manner. Delete and start again.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Is a gathering of all kinds of wingnuts and moonbats and relevant in terms of Antisemitism and antisemitic dog whistles. Have yet to hear a serious reason for deletion. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The subject is appropriate for an article. The language should be freer of emotion. Tone it down. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I read it again. The subject is no different than a multitude of other RW-articles. There are only two things wrong, and one of them will be corrected with growth, that is sources. The second thing is just a matter of style - an English speaking satirist might do wonders. Neither the author nor I are qualified for that job. So, again keep but improve. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
PS: Sources and content. I'd like to see more. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
"Other stuff exists" is not a reason to keep an article. MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it is on-mission, but improvable.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems on-mission. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I'm pretty sure there's missional stuff to be said about it, though I'm skeptical if the current article is that stuff. It's currently also rather lacking in the content department, so I dunno if it's worth keeping at this point. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:11, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- There is a saying on WP: Deletion is no cure for content. If your issue is with the content of the article, please be so kind as to add content Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  - [Removed comment and put it in delete section]---Mona- (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    - Mona, vote for delete then. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  - There really isn't. What there is, is WP:TNT, which definitely applies here: demolish and start over - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to start an article with controversial content, you should properly cite every statement with a reputable source. Add the snark later, after you've got all the facts right. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerboa[edit]

Rawr! ^{— Unsigned, by: long-eared bipedal rodent}

So what's the consensus now?[edit]

I know that the delete side won. But there were more votes for "on mission thus recreate" and "keep on mission" combined thaen for "delete off mission". Hence the article should recreated in due time, shouldn't it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

By anyone who isn't you. I note it's currently at -6 on the "to do" list, which is pretty much "to don't" - David Gerard (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

David Blunkett | Result: Kept after expansion[edit]

David Blunkett – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

off mission article about a minor UK politician TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
An on-mission article is possible but this stub doesn't say anything worthwhile & has been that way virtually unchanged for 7½ years. Unless big things happen to it in the next few days, I say get rid of it. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that being home Secretary classifies as being a "minor politician", but the current page offers nothing of substance. I learned nothing from reading it. Not saying we can't have a page on this guy, but it needs to offer at least *something* of substance. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Bad nomination from ignorance. Ridiculously authoritarian politician in the Blair government - David Gerard (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It might be a bad nomination, at least in your world David, but it is not born of ignorance. I could roll off the names of 100 British ministers who were every bit as authoritarian as Blunkett. Do we want an article on all of them? The fact this article sits as a very unimpressive stub says much. Blunkett does represent the gone wrong period of the Blair government which certainly did become very authoritarian and he could be mentioned in that respect in the New Labour article. He is neither notable enough nor notably different enough to warrant his own RW article. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Is that really a good argument, though? I can list a bunch of authoritarian Republicans, but that doesn't make Dick Cheney non-notable, does it? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Weak keep (we do that here, right?). It needs expansion, particularly is authoritarian words and deeds need detailing. If not, redirect to New Labour. Bicycle^wheel 10:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I hate to agree with David Gerard on anything, but I actually agree with his arguments here. Blacke (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

a crap load of work has been done by me on the article since the AFD. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

sorry yeah, I agree with you. I was tired. Not sure why I commented on this page anyway. Blacke (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

He's held some very important positions and he's big on authoritarianism, from what the article tells me, so it at least seems missional. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:12, 8 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
This is one of those situations that might be hard to evaluate if you don't live there. A British politician who apparently is dismissive of civil libertarians and their concerns. I don't think that every US politician who has ever said something critical about the ACLU warrants an article without more. I'd like to see the article make a better case as to why his statement is a bigger deal than that. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 14:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article emphasises that he was Home Secretary in a "ZOMG this jackboot was Home secretary!" way, but non-Brits are left none the wiser what a Home Secretary is (in charge of courts, the police, prisons, immigration etc). Bicycle^wheel

13:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, this might sound a bit odd as I nominated the article for deletion. There are some good points made in this AFD on all sides and it seems unlikely we will reach consensus. So, let me have a go at the article over the next few days. I still believe that Blunkett's authoritarianism would be better dealt with in the New Labour article as it was a symptom of that administration. But let me see if I can make this article stand up.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I had a go at the article. It is dry and dreary but so is the subject matter. And I am just not invested in writing about this man. But I suspect the AFD can now go?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think so. Bicycle^wheel 08:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Sargon Of Akkad | Result: Deleted[edit]

Sargon Of Akkad – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Some random twat on the Internet. Obviously a really nasty piece of work. But he doesn't seem to have said anything that millions of other people haven't sprinkled across comments sections all over the web. What makes him notable? Spud (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
All his subscribers and support, as well as his positions? The article is incredibly poorly written, but it should simply be rewritten. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If NephilimFree get's an article, why not this guy? He dwarfs Nasty Neph in subscribers and makes equally counterfactual claims. ^{— Unsigned, by: ‎101.190.13.161 / talk / contribs}
'Cos it's shit. A non-shit article would be worth keeping - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
His only real relevance to the site is his status as a Gamergate figurehead.Oh yeah, and this also looks like something straight out of Encyclopedia Dramatica. It's not even original; it's a ripoff of the long-running trolling of Ben Garrison. Blitz (Complaints Box) 07:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone can find some notability and worthy content (unlikely). Otherwise he is just yet another noisy troll.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Worst article ever Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This is too much of a hit piece, with way too loaded a framing even for us. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Not notable. Kill it. --Castaigne (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

An article on a person with millions of video views about atheism and social justice is needed. If you don't like the current article, improve it. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

New Apologetics | Result: Keep[edit]

New Apologetics – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Until cites, not worth it. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 07:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Die die die die die die die die Blacke (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Seems to be a valid, vaguely missional subject. Just need cites and snark.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
As the Orwellite above says, it's missional, it just needs expansion. Cites and examples especially. Bicycle^wheel 08:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Orwellite? Uncertain if compliment. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 09:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:The Road to Wigan Pier. Bicycle^wheel 09:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Be thankful I am not Keeping Aspidistras Flying (much).--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Just as long as you Come Up For Air once in a while.
A trivial Google search for "new apologetics" shows the applicability and missionality. Mediocre stub, but clearly on-mission - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Google easily provides sources for this article. This is exactly the type of group we mean to cover. This article just needs moar work. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the type of group that RationalWiki was created to expose. Just needs expansion with sources. Tuxer (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
For the reasons listed above. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I would like to plead for a two-day stay of execution. It's a phrase that doesn't really describe a well-unified movement, and I'll admit that what's there now is crap, BUT it's a missional subject that can be salvaged/written for real. I meant to the other day but life plus other RW stoofs of interest. Walker Walker Walker 08:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Sometimes articles take time to develop. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- this one'll take lots of time, seeing as nobody's done any actual developing since the 26th. Bicycle^wheel 17:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerboa[edit]

Shouldn't we generally have a longer interval between the nomination for deletion and the actual wiping off the face off the wiki of a certain topic? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's supposed to be a week? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a divide between nominal and actual. It tends to be defined by everyone going "Seriously? This is garbage" dogpiling the first day. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Dogpiling is basically RW's speedy delete template. Heh. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter | Result: Reversing course on my own reverse course: Kept 16 - 3[edit]

Black Lives Matter – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Off mission. Poorly written (huge blockquote from random Redditor - really?) and extremely one-sided. Edit war bait. Shtrominer (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Biased article to present these guys as a "human rights group", in fact they're mostly racist thugs. Should be deleted since the truth isn' being posted. I provided evidence for this on BLM talk page: (1) video evidence shows entire crowds of BLM activists shouting for the killing of cops, (2) many members of BLM were on camera saying their crowd would not accept anyone who is not "black" or "African descent" (they turned away some "white" guy) and (3) the fact BLM invite black supremacists to their conferences or organized events.Krom (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
"I don't like that the articles tone does not agree with me" is not a valid reason for deleting it any more than "it causes edit wars!" is--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Why then aren't we saying Stormfront is a "human rights" group? This is why most people think RW is a place for self-hating "white" liberals -- there's a double standard here that stinks on most race articles.Krom (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Because it isn't.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Stormfront: cop haters, white separatists, white supremacist = racist extremists. Black Lives Matter: cop haters, black separatists, black supremacists = anti-racist human rights group??? Ok. Thanks for proving my point. Krom (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I never said one thing about BLM, I said your reason is not a valid reason to go around wanting articles deleted and I would summarily close any AFD's you started with such a reason.. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

So Krom, watched any Fox News lately? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:13, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Although the cure for a shitty article is not deletion there is nothing in this article that is on-mission. Tielec01 (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
On-mission. Not horribly written compared to RW's general standards. RW covers controversial issues, so yes, edit wars may occur. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:24, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Edit war bait? You mean like most of the articles here? --Akira (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Easily on-mission, and "people may edit war about it" is a crap reason to propose deletion. Bicycle^wheel 19:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Might as well be arguing for deleting Occupy Wall Street. CorruptUser (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Solving edit wars by deleting articles is a shit way to do. This article is clearly on-mission (is about a more or less notable civil rights organization ).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Why in the world would this article be deleted? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
On-Mission? Of course! Edit war bait? Most of the articles here are. Might as well argue about the feminism article being deleted. It's been improved enough that it doesn't look poorly written at all. So, why should this article be deleted?--Pokefrazer (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
BLM is patently a response to a pattern of authoritarian systemic abuse, and so sits squarely in RW's wheelhouse. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Spurious reasoning is Spurious --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
If this article is off mission, so are Gamergate, Anonymous, Rape Culture and a whole host more. No, the problem is editors not demanding that Avenger and Arisboch refrain from inserting factually false footnotes. They are not even required to engage it on the talk page. Make them document and do so accurately or omit note altogether, and leave the article alone.---Mona- (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Deletion discussions ain't the place to bitch about other users or their edits, that's what user- and article-talkpages are there for.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You could have done without all the stuff after "a whole host more" up in the keep section--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I should have put it under Keep -- you're right. But I stand by my entire comment. But then, you've been wholly unwilling to admit the problem and I don't know what to do about that. It seems a form of denial -- no snark. I find it incredibly frustrating.---Mona- (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I fully understand the issues here - they have no relevance on voting whether the article should be kept or deleted , in particular when neither person was advocating for it's deletion. Don't drag fights into other pages. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I get it.---Mona- (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
As the creator of the page, I stand that it needs to be expanded, with actual sources. Just because the content is controversial and some people don't like it that doesn't mean it's off-topic. Tuxer (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
--Owlman (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
????? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
This is daft. I can't see 12 people suddenly coming along to vote for delete. Can't we declare this a keep already? Spud (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The edit war is being caused by particular people, not the subject. This nomination is inane - David Gerard (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Close this now?[edit]

It's currently 16-3 in favour of keeping. Barring a comeback greater than Wales vs Scotland in 1988, this one's over. Bicycle^wheel 18:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

If we delete this rather tame edit war due to edit warring, the only article that would stay on this wiki would be the one on Neptune Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it's off mission. So according to some of the more rigid editors here, including the one who started this whole thing, it should be deleted as well. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep some discussions at one point[edit]

Whether BDS should be mentioned (and how) is now discussed at four or more different places. This is enough. Please discuss the BDS question at the BLM talk page where it first arose... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. So why are you raising it here? Щєазєюіδ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Mona raised it above. Or at least I understood her words in that way. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No. I didn't say that. The problem of your behavior extends far beyond the article unders discussion, but your behavior will continue to raise this problem and/or others. All of which is to say, this is not a discussion going on about BDS "in four or more different places. " Your behavior, and your comrade's, is the larger problem.---Mona- (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk about this elsewhere--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. ---Mona- (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Stupidity | Result: Dead and stupid[edit]

Stupidity – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not really an article about anything & certainly not analysing & refuting anything; just a few random quotes & other scraps of trivia thrown together. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Nope. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 07:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Nuke from orbit Blacke (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
It's more like an overgrown fork page than an actual article, but if you trimmed it back, would it still be worth having? Bicycle^wheel 09:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd argue we could keep it around as a Fun article. But keeping it as it is now, as much as I like the quotes in it, seems not great. The only downside is that we now have to clean up internal links to this page from a zillion articles. Still seems worth it, though. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Kill it with fire. --Castaigne (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Deleting this article would be stupid.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Why? How does it serve any of the site missions? ωεαşεζøίɗ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

This is stupidity Walker Walker Walker 07:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Takedownman | Result: Keep[edit]

Takedownman – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

What this page amounts to is "Somebody is wrong on the internet". And this particular person is wrong about the topic of human trafficking and the dark web, which are not really within our area of speciality. He doesn't seem to be very notable, a Google search doesn't turn up any quality third party material about him. The two references on the page aren't even about him. Spud (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
RW was founded around "somebody is wrong on the Internet" and is dedicated to a significant degree to woo- and bullshit-peddlers on the net.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
~~Delete for reasons expressed above by Spud. I should have raised this yesterday rather than placing a note on the article page.~~ --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
~~Authors saving throw failed - We aren't the place to go when Wikipedia doesn't want to cover your topic.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 14:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)~~

Keep[edit]

Right, so I'm researching about urban legends on the Dark Web. I write things like this and this to these ends. One of the key sources of misinformation about this topic comes from misleading infographics like this, the other source is the emerging set of Youtubers who mix fact and fiction into their reporting about deep web sites, spreading urban legends, confusion and misinformation. I find this new phenomenon very damaging to the understanding of the actual Dark Web, often creating moral panics from nothing. I edit Wikipedia heavily to seperate fact from fiction in these areas but Takedownman is not yet Wikipedia-notable so unsuitable for inclusion. I was seeking to build up a portfolio of Takedownman's misinformation and I assumed Rational Wiki would be a suitable place to do so. Obviously the article is not yet in any kind of finished state yet. I hope understanding my goals will help. 13:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)^{— Unsigned, by: Deku-shrub / talk / contribs}
Give it a few more days. If shrubby over here can make it decent, then it can keep. FuzzyCatPotato of the Folksy Meringues (talk/stalk) 17:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
We do have to do this eventually. K O M F 18:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep for now, pending improvements. Dark Web is something we should cover better. Bicycle^wheel 09:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This article has potential. Keep it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Definite change of mind after recent work by Deku-shrub. The potential is there. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The list at the end could do with a trim, but otherwise I guess it works out.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I certainly think this article can and should stay, though I do mean that with a significant rewrite, where his wall of text of video links is replaced with actual text, analysis and refutation as per the mission statement. So the current article is crap, but there's a ton of sources that can be used for a rewrite already in it. So deletion is not needed. Also, this guy is atleast as notable as Stars are Souls. I find this guy notable. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Give the author a while to answer "so what?" but it does need to be answered really - David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Kristen Luman | Result: redirect to Ghost Mine[edit]

Kristen Luman – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

About half this page isn't even about Kristen Luman, It's about the show she hosts, Ghost Mine, which we've already got an article about. Most of the rest of it is made up of tabloid-style gossip (all unsourced gossip about a living person) which seems to be suggesting that she's been with blokes and might have got her tits out on camera. Big fucking deal! It doesn't sound like she's a genuine pseudoscience promoter, just someone who happens to host a stupid TV show. Spud (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Zapped as a stupendous BLP hazard. Appears to be a complete driveby. Redirected to Ghost Mine - David Gerard (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Why there was an article on Kristen Luman at all eludes me. Though since I'm being redirected to Ghost Mine now, I'm going to say that I don't think we should delete the article for the show Ghost Mine (although it needs a lot of improvement). So if this vote is to remove the Kristen Luman article entirely - the one that's currently a redirect - then I'm with you. If the vote is to remove all mention of Ghost Mine, I'm not with you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't suppose it much matters a month later. But for the record, I did not mean delete all references to Ghost Mine. I just meant get rid of a page of tabloid gossip, which did nothing but vaguely suggested that the subject had shagged a few guys and got her boobs out on camera. Spud (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Bat shit crazy | Result: put to sleep[edit]

Bat shit crazy – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This is absolute crap and an utter waste of space. This has got fuck all to do with "batshit crazy" as we use the term here/ What the fuck have Spanish-accented party animals got to do with our mission? Spud (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. It's a badly written and very silly definition of a term. Slippery slope, et cetera.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Off-mission, twisting of words in regards to how this word is used here, anyway.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You know what rationalwiki needs? More vague articles that become a natural place to dump your hatred du jour. More moderate opinion: many things covered on rationalwiki are indeed batshit crazy and explaining that could be helpful, but the article would have a very hard time living up to that standard. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Balete it. And just as an FYI, regardless of the fate of this article, it's not even using the "right" name - which is "batshit", not "bat shit" - the latter is an alternate form that exists only as a footnote to the former. In the unlikely event that this article even stays, "bat shit" is a redirect at best. These aren't the grounds for deleting it, but just saying. Source: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/batshit Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Maybe copypaste a bit into Category:Batshit crazy, but otherwise, yeah we don't need an article on this. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Feminist video games, now renamed | Result: Deleted[edit]

Video games featuring positive female characters – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Inaccurate, poorly written, and it isn't even the right way to approach the topic. I could help make it more accurate by adding examples, but soon enough it would become clear that there are a lot of games out there that treat both genders fairly. The article could explain that these games aren't a majority, but people are going to take home the opposite message. Player 03 (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
While I'm at it, let's take a look at RationalWiki's mission statement:
1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
  Neither feminism nor video games are pseudoscience or anti-science.
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
  There are cranks arguing over feminism and/or video games, but this article doesn't mention them. Nor does it argue against ideas commonly held by cranks, nor does it explain things that are commonly misunderstood by cranks.
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
  Neither feminism nor video games fall under these categories, except perhaps for fringe groups in the feminist movement.
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
  Video games may be "media," but the policy is referring to the news media.
I realize that there are other articles that don't seem to match these criteria. However, most of those articles fall under the category of "explaining things that are commonly misunderstood by cranks," which as I said above, does not apply to this article. Player 03 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Amen to that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It's possible to argue forever about what makes a video game "feminist". Is the newest Tomb Raider feminist? What of the several that make Wonder Woman a playable character? Any game where you can choose a female protagonist? (This vastly improves the Mass Effect series.) And so forth. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Many feminism related things are on mission for RW, an article about games that are feminist are not --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Wëäŝëïöïď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Balete it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The article, in its current state, is irreparably terrible. The topic of the article is already covered in dozens of other articles. On top of that, what makes something a "feminist video game" is a poorly defined, subjective concept that would likely 1) add to mission creep on RationalWiki and 2) wind up with a definition that is so vague it will be subjected to debate on RationalWiki for years on end. For these reasons, I find this article unsuitable for RationalWiki and worthy of deletion. Gooniepunk (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Per Gooniepunk's "subjective concept" argument. —Bilorv (smells) 12:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to add: I think the new title is about as bad as the old one (it's swapped inaccuracy of description for verbosity). —Bilorv (smells) 13:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Cruft magnet. Alec Sanderson (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Cruft magnet is an excellent way to describe the primary problem here. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Keep and expand. --Castaigne (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep, expand, change the definition of feminist video games, and maybe change the title to "Positive representations of females" instead so we can avoid an unproductive argument. I've already started working on it by inserting specific examples and sources, and also rewriting the poor prose, since deleting the article altogether is a terrible idea. Also, feminism is not in fact a pseudoscience but an "-ism", one in which we increasingly study due to their misrepresentation in the news media and media in general. Let me add that in one of the video games in Mass Effect the protagonist enters into an intense love scene with an alien. Media outlets such as Fox News decided to commit a straw man and say that the alien sex scenes were purely for pornographic purposes rather than artistic choices made by both the player and the developer. An editor made a wise move by putting it in the Media Category is it news, showing that it is in fact relevant to Rational Wiki.--Dandtiks69 (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Clues to how to prevent viewers form taking home the opposite message include graphical representations of the quantity of these kinds of games versus more traditional ones and an emphasis on tokenism. Like I said I will emphasize the definition of a feminist video game more so that games like Tomb Raider or Bayonetta don't get included, as choosing a female playable character isn't enough. I put down from Feminist Frequency "Jade" as a reliable character for feminism because she has relatable problems to those of both genders and because her attire emphasizes practicality, a lot. This is how we can get the article to fit in "Positive Female Character archetypes" or "Feminist Video Games", whichever title is preferable. That's why I say change the title instead. Dandtiks69 (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I think this is just the wrong place for this article. We have list articles about music of a particular persuasion, why not stuff this into the same namespace? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 07:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Doug Stanhope | Result: deleted[edit]

Doug Stanhope – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

I wasn't the one who put the Delete template on the page. But I think it was the right thing to do. Some comedian tells rude jokes about religion while drinking and smoking. So bloody what? Spud (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Fails the "so what" test in its present state - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Shoot to kill.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 10:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Wēāŝēīōīď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was a bit of a poser when it first appeared, but was hopeful it would flesh out. Apparently not. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 13:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Doug who? ScepticWombat (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Snowball's chance in August north of the equator. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Oil, Smoke & Mirrors | Result: Keep[edit]

Oil, Smoke & Mirrors – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Okay, unlike A Crude Awakening: The Oilcrash this film at least ticks the apocalyptic FUD boxes, but why does RW actually need this? Unless someone wants to slog through it and write a critical and snarky review of it (my edits being only a snarkification of a rather happy-clappy review), I suggest it gets the chop. I don't even know if it's interesting enough to be here in the first place. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Improve not delete. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This looks entirely on-mission - David Gerard (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
^ What the ladies before me said. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Considering the initial response I've received, I suggest that both this and A Crude Awakening be merged into peak oil in a section about peak oil "talking points". The peak oil article is very short and could do with expansion, and splitting all this peak oil crankery off into articles on each and every peaker crankomentary ever made is not very helpful. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel like some kind of spambot here, but I phrased myself so agreeably on the talk page for this movie (and the one for "A Crude Awakening") that I will repeat myself once again: The contents of this article should be merged with the main Peak Oil article. We shouldn't lose track of these particular documentaries that roam about the web, never mind since most if not all of them claim to present "new" or "novel" or "never-before-put-into-flowchart-format" concepts and discoveries regarding these isses - something the truthers will always be able to accuse us of ignorance over. So even if everyone agrees on the worst about this specific article, atleast bake notice of the movie, its name, and the valuable bits of information regarding it into the main (and awfully short) Peak Oil article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash | Result: Keep[edit]

A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Why do we need this film mentioned on RW? It doesn't sound like the fearmongering peak oil doomcrying of Oil Smoke and Mirrors and pointing out that our current economic system would be in trouble without oil is kind of a "duh"-message. Axe it. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Improve not delete. Also, "running out of" uranium? Debunk this stupid film. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
No reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Haven't seen the film, but even if it isn't a "fearmongering peak oil doomcrying", then it would still make sense to have an article on it, to explain *why* it's not one, and expand on why the points made in the film are true. Explaining *good* science is an important part of "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.". Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Considering the initial response I've received, I suggest that both this and Oil Smoke and Mirrors be merged into peak oil in a section about peak oil "talking points". The peak oil article is very short and could do with expansion, and splitting all this peak oil crankery off into articles on each and every peaker crankomentary ever made is not very helpful. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel like some kind of spambot here, but I phrased myself so agreeably on the talk page for this movie (and the one for "Oil, Smoke and Mirrors") that I will repeat myself once again: The contents of this article should be merged with the main Peak Oil article. We shouldn't lose track of these particular documentaries that roam about the web, never mind since most if not all of them claim to present "new" or "novel" or "never-before-put-into-flowchart-format" concepts and discoveries regarding these isses - something the truthers will always be able to accuse us of ignorance over. So even if everyone agrees on the worst about this specific article, atleast bake notice of the movie, its name, and the valuable bits of information regarding it into the main (and awfully short) Peak Oil article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Deep ecology | Result: Speedy close - even the proposer isn't proposing deletion[edit]

Deep ecology – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The extreme versions can easily be merged into hard green and the vague wishy-washy Næss version promoted on the talk page is hardly worth mentioning as it smacks of Sunday school environmentalism. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Wėąṣėḷőįď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Weaseloid, any specifics about what's "keepworthy"? Or is it just on "general mission relevance" grounds? ScepticWombat (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't read it start to finish, but it appears to be a mission-relevant topic & is long enough for a RW article on a minor topic. What I don't see here is a rationale for deletion: only "can be merged", which isn't an argument. If that's what you want to propose, it should be on RationalWiki:Duplicate articles rather than AfD. ωεαşεζøίɗ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, my bad, but how often do editors actually check the duplicate articles section and should I move it there instead?

Anyway, I'm arguing for a merge with hard green (and perhaps a fork pointing to hard green and environmentalism for the differing strains of deep ecology) and making deep ecology a subsection of that article since the RW-relevant bits (depopulation and Luddite factions) are probably better covered there. By contrast, the vague over-hedging Næss version with its huge escape hatches as to what may constitute "vital necessities" for humans really don't seem very relevant to RW as, in practice, it dovetails with rather mainstream attitudes about environmental "stewardship" (i.e. not carelessly fucking up the environment). For instance, aiming for population decline, but only recommending voluntary family planning is simply advocating practices wholly incommensurate with your goals. This "Næssist" strain might tag on some spiritual woo à la the Gaia hypothesis to general environmentalism, but not much beyond that. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge as above. The duplicate articles page isn't checked as often as here, but what's the rush? Bicycle^wheel 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Merge as a section in hard green - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
^ FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 11:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Extreme wingnuttery & Category:Extreme moonbattery | Result: Closed - no consensus[edit]

Category:Extreme wingnuttery & Category:Extreme moonbattery – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

These categories are so vague and arbitrary as to be meaningless. I suspect they're used much more for compulsive labelling than they are for actual page navigation by readers. they appear across hundreds of pages on unrelated subjects and they're an occasional source of some of the most pointless wheel-warring. & They undermine any point they might once have made by putting such "extremists" as Michael Moore and Mel Gibson in the same bag as dictators and terrorists. ωεαşεζøίɗ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
~~Aye~~ Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, way too broad and vague. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. Spud (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup. Make haste slowly (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete as offensive to bats. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Are cats elegible for AfD? If so, yeah. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Bird don't sing, the wind doesn't blow} 13:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Kill it. --Castaigne (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
God, I can't muster the enthusiasm for killing this you guys can. It's actually a hard choice. It's problematic because ever add or remove is a debate. Not a good thing. But if you click those categories and can't see the unifying thread, you're crazy. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

This page now only exists to redirect people to one of the more specific categories of the far-right and will rarely be used (with justification). It will only be used in the exceptionally rare circumstance (maybe ten article tops) of equal overlap between all three categories of wingnut, such as the MRA movement, or other very broad far-right/reactionary movements, or certain pages such as for the clogosphere since that can be all three categories too. (PS could someone do something about Roosh V I can't find where he's categorized, move him to probably authoritarian right as he manages to treat women as even less than second class citizens.) ClothCoat (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The subcats are better & are useful Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep What ClothCoat said. Also they're funny. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I vote to phase out this category in favor of breaking it down into two or more categories so it's more helpful and organized. I do think we should have a category for the extreme/anti-rational left and extreme/anti-rational right because it pertains to the mission statement and so people can read through either if they find it interesting. I was on the verge of breaking it down into "libertarian wingnuttery" and "authoritarian wingnuttery", I think that will work for now, with perhaps a third category called "horrific wingnuttery/moonbattery" for the terrorist/murderous far right/left. Weasal can remove people he feels are not important enough to go under either (such as Mel Gibson) though I'd like to note that notability is not suppose to be very important for us. ClothCoat (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
That sounds good, too, for the legitimate examples. Beware, tho, that categories (like Category:Hard green) already exist for many cats. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
+1 to this, do please continue - David Gerard (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this, and with the six new divisions that have recently been established (authoritarian/conservative/libertarian wingnuttery, authoritarian/liberal/libertarian moonbattery) along with the seventh one (centrist stupidity); there are so many diverse pages fitting these categories as to warrant the new, more specific and meaningful categories - each of which can then be individually accessed from other related categories such as "Authoritarianism" or "Conservatism". Perhaps these 6 or 7 new categories can be also contained within one umbrella category called "Political extremism" or something like that. --Yisfidri (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could purge the examples and leave only the worst of the worst. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Kyubey stares into your soul. /人◕‿‿◕人\} 13:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
We could use these categories as either a category new users can use, who're not sure, exactly which kinda wingnuttery/moonbattery an article deals with (so that more experienced editors can transfer it into the appropriate category, if needed) or for wingnuttery/moonbattery, which doesn't fall into any of the other categories.--Arisboch (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it not time someone closes this? —Bilorv (smells) 01:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I see five comments in favour of the new categories & seven in favour of deletion if you discount FuzzyCatPotato who seems to have changed his mind. Deleting the cats from every page will be quite a big job so I'd rather the outcome was clearer first. Wéáśéĺóíď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Nah, most of the articles have been moved to the new smaller subcategories. There's only a few pages left in these categories. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
But the subcategories are as stupid as the original ones. ωεαşεζøίɗ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Y? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
For all the reasons I stated above. Wèàšèìòìď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of them either, but this AfD isn't about the subcategories. If you wanna delete them, feel free to start up a discussion at a new AfD page. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this AfD is about the subcategories too. I specifically nominated these cats for deletion before ClothCoat put in place his restructure plan so that we could get rid of them before he wasted time doing so. The fact that's he's gone ahead & done it on like two people's say-so rather than waiting out the vote doesn't invalidate the votes for deletion. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The world belongs to the swift.--Arisboch (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I find the reasoning that this AfD applies to the new subcategories too kinda hard to follow when they were created after this AfD went up. Maybe you'd vote the same for the subcategories as you've voted for the initial 2 categories, but that's not necessarily true for all those who voted to delete here. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Well anybody could rename or split a nominated page or category so that it's technically no longer nominated for deletion, but this is really just gaming the system. My nomination here was directly prompted by ClothCoat saying he wanted to split these inane moonbattery/wingnuttery categories into even more inane version of the same, so that we could seek consensus on this first. We can either respect the AfD process & let the mob decide or participate in a chess game where we keep moving the goalposts so that we have to renominate & vote all over again for something only marginally different which might be changed again within a few hours before the vote has played out. Wēāŝēīōīď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes people improve pages that are nominated for deletion -- eg Panthera. Then votes based on the old status quo are irrelevant, yes. The purpose of AFD iss to kill/improve trash, not to follow strict rules FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That was a case where most votes are against deletion. & I don't agree that changing stuff during an AfD deletion makes existing votes irrelevant, especially here where I specifically raised the AfD so that the issue could be resolved before the changes were implemented & when that process wasn't honoured by letting the AfD run its course before implementing changes. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, it wasn't particularly clear that the point of this AfD was to delete the listed pages and stop these smaller categories from being created. ClothCoat was the one who mentioned the latter. If he hadn't, how would this AfD have any noticable connection to him creating the smaller categories? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
See Category_talk:Extreme_wingnuttery#I.27m_doing_it. Wëäŝëïöïď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

EvoWiki/Terms of use | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Terms of use – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

No relevance to RW's mission or our coverage or current project of porting over Evowiki articles to RW. We don't need to maintain a static copy of -every- single page on Evowiki, otherwise we may have just kept Evowiki up as it's own site nobody could edit. "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a canonical example of cruft. Alec Sanderson (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete all EvoWiki pages of a non-article nature. We didn't keep RationalWikiWiki's policy pages etc, why keep EvoWiki's? We're not the Dead Wiki Museum. Bicycle^wheel 21:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Redundant Wēāŝēīōīď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
For crying out loud, why is there any discussion. DELETE.Scream!! (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

This vote applies to all other EW articles. (A) I think plenty of the pages are relevant to RW's mission -- many contain content or discussion of ideas that's relevant to RW's goals. They also document a skeptic website; to me, this is akin to keeping copies of some of talkorigins's pages if the archive ever went down. (B) RW isn't maintaining a copy of every document -- only these project-related ones. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
We already -have- a page documenting evowiki though. Why is evowiki so special it gets it's entire policy page catalog also brought over to be perused and not, say, conservpaedias policy pages or wikipedias? Citizendium doesn't have large quantities of it's articles sitting on RW servers because it isn't relevant to host the actual policyp ages here, it suffices to talk about them on the citizendium page. And it isn't our job to maintain talk.origin archives either.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
"We already -have- a page documenting evowiki though" -- and does it document EW's policies in full?

"Why is evowiki so special it gets it's entire policy page catalog also brought over to be perused and not, say, conservpaedias policy pages or wikipedias?" -- Not least because it's ours, and because its goals mostly align with RW's; WP's and CP's are significantly different.

On citizendium -- if it ever falls, and if the RMF buys it, then why not copy over (some of) the policy pages, if only to show why it fell? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
"Do we cover evowikis relevant policies in full? No" Well then we should get working on that evowiki article. " Not least because it's ours, and because its goals mostly align with RW's; WP's and CP's are significantly different Yes, and? Just because we own the domain now doesn't mean it's still important we forever maintain snapshots of policy pages, nor does the fact it aligns with our own goals. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

As to your "show -how- it fell- point, we don't need to actually show people the policy pages of citizendium (or any website) to tell them why those policies led to it falling. That's just stupid. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
"Well then we should get working on that evowiki article." Or just keep the project pages and let people see for themselves. Again, where's the harm?

"Yes, and? Just because we own the domain now doesn't mean it's still important we forever maintain snapshots of policy pages, nor does the fact it aligns with our own goals." (A) Preserving lost info and making it accurate and easily accessible (as opposed to web-archiving or guessing from viewing other wikis) seems important, (B) preserving the policy of a similar-minded wiki for review or incorporation seems important, (C) maintaining their project pages seems intellectually honest when incorporating their project into ours.

"we don't need to actually show people the policy pages of citizendium (or any website) to tell them why those policies led to it falling. That's just stupid." We don't. We could summarize their policies and the effects those policies had in excruciating detail. But there's (a) no harm in letting people view the original policies and (b) no substitute for the original. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Because the internet will be forever ruined by the lack of the Evowiki about us, terms of use or main page. Man is it a shame we lost that Featured article policy page. page. They are hypercritical to the fight against pseudoism and straight up antiscience. Thank god Fuzzy preserved the pages til RW falls as well.

"Or just keep the project pages and let people see for themselves. Again, where's the harm?" you heard it here first folks, Fuzzy thinks improving Ratwiki articles is less important than just keeping copies of everything on the internet here. Also that "Well i already put them on Ratwiki so now you have to justify deleting them, not me justify why we needed them in the first place" argument again.

"(B) preserving the policy of a similar-minded wiki for review or incorporation seems important, (C) maintaining their project pages seems intellectually honest when incorporating their project into ours." We dont need to keep carbon copies of Evowiki policy pages to cannibalize some of their policies. And nobody is claiming we made up the articles wholesale, being able to find out how the parts of the evowiki articles thath aven't been RWified yet were written doesn't actually tell me anything about the subject besides it "promises" it was written accurately and truthfully

Excuse me while i port over the various USSR and North Korean constitution/governing documents/governmental orders to help "explain" just WHY those countries failed/are failing. Rationalwiki? more like documentwiki. But I won't actually tell you why, you'll have to divine it by reading them, as per earlier, we don't need to improve our actual pages on the subject, we put their policies here instead!.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
"Because the internet will be forever ruined by the lack of the Evowiki about us, terms of use or main page. Man is it a shame we lost that Featured article policy page. page. They are hypercritical to the fight against pseudoism and straight up antiscience. Thank god Fuzzy preserved the pages til RW falls as well. "Or just keep the project pages and let people see for themselves. Again, where's the harm?" you heard it here first folks, Fuzzy thinks improving Ratwiki articles is less important than just keeping copies of everything on the internet here. Also that "Well i already put them on Ratwiki so now you have to justify deleting them, not me justify why we needed them in the first place" argument again."

"We dont need to keep carbon copies of Evowiki policy pages to cannibalize some of their policies." Would anyone see them otherwise?

"And nobody is claiming we made up the articles wholesale, being able to find out how the parts of the evowiki articles thath aven't been RWified yet were written doesn't actually tell me anything about the subject besides it "promises" it was written accurately and truthfully" (A) the page in question says the opposite (B) that's not why I support having the EW articles

Excuse me while i port over the various USSR and North Korean constitution/governing documents/governmental orders to help "explain" just WHY those countries failed/are failing. Rationalwiki? more like documentwiki. But I won't actually tell you why, you'll have to divine it by reading them, as per earlier, we don't need to improve our actual pages on the subject, we put their policies here instead!" Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 19:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I would respond but you didn't make any points for me to respond to. Or how what i suggested i do at the end is any different from what you're doing now. If the policy pages at evowiki directly improve my ability to understand evowiki, regardless of having any commentary on them, then doing the same for a failed country will do the same right? Whats the difference?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Besides the middle, but it was largely lost in you just copy pasting what i said back. "Would anyone see them otherwise? If there's any evowiki policies we should put in RW, suggest them. Don't nebulously maintain the policy pages incase in the future we decide we want some of them. That's a shit reason to keep them. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe because failed states aren't wikis and aren't quite as relevant to maintaining a successful wiki? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 19:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
But they are relevant to our mission, which is to document Authoritarianism. The soviet union was authoritarian, and a commentaryless, plain text copy of it's constitution will clearly improve our coverage of the soviet union and soviet style communism. What's the difference? --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Permissions | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Permissions – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Move what little useful information is here to the evowiki article. No relevance to RW's mission or in our coverage or current project of porting over Evowiki articles to RW. We don't need to maintain a static copy of -every- single page on Evowiki, otherwise we may have just kept Evowiki up as it's own site nobody could edit--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete all EvoWiki pages of a non-article nature. We didn't keep RationalWikiWiki's policy pages etc, why keep EvoWiki's? We're not the Dead Wiki Museum. Bicycle^wheel 21:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This was a two line stub of no value. I've gone ahead & deleted it. Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Suggested uses of EvoWiki | Result: deleted[edit]

Delete[edit]

First suggested use of Evowiki: Don't, because you cannot. No relevance to RW's mission or in our coverage or current project of porting over Evowiki articles to RW. We don't need to maintain a static copy of -every- single page on Evowiki, otherwise we may have just kept Evowiki up as it's own site nobody could edit. "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete all EvoWiki pages of a non-article nature. We didn't keep RationalWikiWiki's policy pages etc, why keep EvoWiki's? We're not the Dead Wiki Museum. Bicycle^wheel 21:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This is just pie-eyed brainstorming. Щєазєюіδ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/How to start using EvoWiki | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/How to start using EvoWiki – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Step 1) Don;t, because you cannot Step 2) Go to Ratwiki instead, No relevance to RW's mission or in our coverage or current project of porting over Evowiki articles to RW. We don't need to maintain a static copy of -every- single page on Evowiki, otherwise we may have just kept Evowiki up as it's own site nobody could edit. "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete all EvoWiki pages of a non-article nature. We didn't keep RationalWikiWiki's policy pages etc, why keep EvoWiki's? We're not the Dead Wiki Museum. Bicycle^wheel 21:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Lame Wëäŝëïöïď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/History | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/History – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Move what little useful information is here to the evowiki article. No relevance to RW's mission or in our coverage or current project of porting over Evowiki articles to RW. We don't need to maintain a static copy of -every- single page on Evowiki, otherwise we may have just kept Evowiki up as it's own site nobody could edit. "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete all EvoWiki pages of a non-article nature. We didn't keep RationalWikiWiki's policy pages etc, why keep EvoWiki's? We're not the Dead Wiki Museum. Bicycle^wheel 21:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Nothing useful that isn't already covered on the main EvoWiki article. Щєазєюіδ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Goals | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Goals – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Move what little useful information is here to the evowiki article. No relevance to RW's mission or in our coverage or current project of porting over Evowiki articles to RW. We don't need to maintain a static copy of -every- single page on Evowiki, otherwise we may have just kept Evowiki up as it's own site nobody could edit "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete all EvoWiki pages of a non-article nature. We didn't keep RationalWikiWiki's policy pages etc, why keep EvoWiki's? We're not the Dead Wiki Museum. Bicycle^wheel 21:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

This one I can kind of see the value of as an overview of what the site was about. It could be retained as a sub-page of the EvoWiki article or key points from it merged into that. Wēāŝēīōīď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Help | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Help – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Move what little useful information is here to the evowiki article. No relevance to RW's mission or in our coverage or current project of porting over Evowiki articles to RW. We don't need to maintain a static copy of -every- single page on Evowiki, otherwise we may have just kept Evowiki up as it's own site nobody could edit "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete all EvoWiki pages of a non-article nature. We didn't keep RationalWikiWiki's policy pages etc, why keep EvoWiki's? We're not the Dead Wiki Museum. Bicycle^wheel 21:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Fuck no. Our own help pages are enough of an ill-curated confusing mess without throwing other wikis' own help pages into the mix. Wėąṣėḷőįď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Featured articles | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Featured articles – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Move what little useful information is here to the evowiki article. No relevance to RW's mission or in our coverage or current project of porting over Evowiki articles to RW. We don't need to maintain a static copy of -every- single page on Evowiki, otherwise we may have just kept Evowiki up as it's own site nobody could edit "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete all EvoWiki pages of a non-article nature. We didn't keep RationalWikiWiki's policy pages etc, why keep EvoWiki's? We're not the Dead Wiki Museum. Bicycle^wheel 21:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess bored time travellers could follow these instructions to cover-nominate EvoWiki articles in the past. To anyone else they're really not very useful. ωεαşεζøίɗ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Feedback | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Feedback – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Move what little useful information is here to the evowiki article. No relevance to RW's mission or in our coverage or current project of porting over Evowiki articles to RW. We don't need to maintain a static copy of -every- single page on Evowiki, otherwise we may have just kept Evowiki up as it's own site nobody could edit "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete all EvoWiki pages of a non-article nature. We didn't keep RationalWikiWiki's policy pages etc, why keep EvoWiki's? We're not the Dead Wiki Museum. Bicycle^wheel 21:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like an idea that didn't take off even at the time. Kill it. Wéáśéĺóíď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/About | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/About – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Move what little useful information is here to the evowiki article. No relevance to RW's mission or in our coverage or current project of porting over Evowiki articles to RW. We don't need to maintain a static copy of -every- single page on Evowiki, otherwise we may have just kept Evowiki up as it's own site nobody could edit "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete all EvoWiki pages of a non-article nature. We didn't keep RationalWikiWiki's policy pages etc, why keep EvoWiki's? We're not the Dead Wiki Museum. Bicycle^wheel 21:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This is more ancient help/instructional content which serves no purpose for us. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Editorial philosophy | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Editorial philosophy – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Move what little useful information is here to the evowiki article. No relevance to RW's mission or in our coverage or current project of porting over Evowiki articles to RW. We don't need to maintain a static copy of -every- single page on Evowiki, otherwise we may have just kept Evowiki up as it's own site nobody could edit "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete all EvoWiki pages of a non-article nature. We didn't keep RationalWikiWiki's policy pages etc, why keep EvoWiki's? We're not the Dead Wiki Museum. Bicycle^wheel 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Nothing here that isn't better covered in our own Community standards & FAQ etc. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Community portal | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Community portal – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Move what little useful information is here to the evowiki article. No relevance to RW's mission or in our coverage or current project of porting over Evowiki articles to RW. We don't need to maintain a static copy of -every- single page on Evowiki, otherwise we may have just kept Evowiki up as it's own site nobody could edit "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete all EvoWiki pages of a non-article nature. We didn't keep RationalWikiWiki's policy pages etc, why keep EvoWiki's? We're not the Dead Wiki Museum. Bicycle^wheel 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
A portal full of dead links for a dead community. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Vandalism | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Vandalism – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

what possible reason do we need a copy of another wiki's policy page on vandalism for? It neither improves our coverage of Evowiki nor our own articles. "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete all EvoWiki pages of a non-article nature. We didn't keep RationalWikiWiki's policy pages etc, why keep EvoWiki's? We're not the Dead Wiki Museum. Bicycle^wheel 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
More old instructional stuff from another site, most of which won't work at RW. Wēāŝēīōīď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Main Page | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Main Page – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

having evowiki articles is good, but having its main page is pointless. Bicycle^wheel 17:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
We gain nothing from having it here. "No harm in keeping it" doesn't outweigh there's no benefits or relevance to RW either. As for "but it'll be lost." Oh no, what a shame that some dead wiki mainpage will not live on forever. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
No harm in keeping it means no benefit from removing it means no obligation to do so. And is it unfeasible that someone might want to see what EvoWiki looked like before it was burnt? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
By that logic we need to host copies of every website we talk about, in the event they also go under and somebody someday wants to have a vague idea of what they looked like. also, it's a wiki, if they really want to know what evowiki "looked like" they can look at 99% of any other wikis page and get the same thing. and there isn't any harm in not deleting off mission articles, and yet we still do.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This website has already gone under and is essentially RW property. And the "no harm" objection is unanswered. FuzzyCatPotato of the Warm Andrew Schlaflys (talk/stalk) 18:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It has been answered - We still gain no benefit from them and We don't have to keep stuff just because it doesn't hurt us to keep it. Nobody is going to look at one of the Evowiki articles we ported over, which ideally will eventually be totally Rwized, know they came from evowiki and go "man i wonder how this website was run!". A person looking at the evowiki article itself, which is where we are supposed to be "documenting" evowiki, isn't going to go "man i really wish i could see what their VANDALISM page looked like!". Any useful information from their vandalism page will be mentioned -on- the evowiki article. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Some of the articles may merit deletion -- Suggested uses of EvoWiki, How to start using EvoWiki, Help, and Vandalism. But the others document EvoWiki or its project. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
No. They dont. All of them are in the same boat - Useless policy or community pages you ported over without even fucking asking RW if we thought they should be here, and now defending them being here because "they are already here". And if there is any relevant information in them, it should go in the Evowiki article, not on seperate pages, Nobody needs to see the actual Evowiki about page to know what we are talking about when we say "Evowiki was a anti-creationism, pro-evolution/science wiki". In that line i just summed up pretty much the only relevant information about Evowkis about page.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not defending the articles under "Useless policy or community pages you ported over without even fucking asking RW if we thought they should be here, and now defending them being here because "they are already here" and it's ridiculous to claim so. I've defended them as useful for understanding EW, as useful for maintaining EW's project now that it's ours, and as (at worst) harmless additions with possible benefits. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 19:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
We aren't "maintaining" Evowiki's project now though, we're subsuming it into our own project. That's part of why we are porting and then editing the articles to look like RW articles: Evowiki is dead and it's identity only exists as a redirect to Rationalwiki. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorporating their articles feels a lot like "maintaining" their goals of spreading evidence for evolution and against creationism. Yes, we are editing them -- again, "maintaining" the wiki spirit of both projects. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Only we aren't Evowiki, we are Rationalwiki. The articles are being put here because the separate identity of Evowiki is considered irrelevant to maintain. The goal of the porting was to take the useful evowiki material, bring it here, and make it a Rationalwiki article. Not just maintain Evowiki on rationalwiki. If we were doing that, maybe the policy pages would be relevant still for understanding Evowiki or' it's articles in a way just mentioning relevant policies on the evowiki article can't show. Since we're stripping the actual part that makes it "evowiki" off, i don't see why we need to keep evowiki policies going forward.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Check the thought I blocked you with. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 19:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete - crap! Scream!! (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete.--Bob ^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

No harm in having it. Further, having it preserves something that would be lost. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Could maybe be repurposed as a portal for the ported EvoWiki articles, but it would need overhauling so that it links to those pages rather than regular RW pages as it does currently, which is confusing. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby | Result: deleted as trashy/dubious stub[edit]

Bill Cosby – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The article is a hit piece created by a BON and is of questionable value to RW. Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Make a good article on Cosby's change from "family values" to "we don't talk about him" in conservative circles. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 17:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Scream!! (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
If somebody wants to bother making this a good article, sure. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Too early to delete an article with potential to be on mission. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Meh ... we have Jimmy Savile, so I guess? Not really convinced, but don't quite want to put it up for deletion either... Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Not good yet, but if we can just provide suitable refs for those two claims of fact ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Animal companions | Result: Roasted and served with a side of potatoes[edit]

Animal companions – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Terrible off-mission article that, at best, belongs in essay space. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Jet Fuel Can't Melt Dank Memes} 13:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Essay. Animalian wrote it, make it his essay. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 14:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with the above. Spud (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
RationalWiki could do with an article on humans' not always admirable treatment of (other) animals, but I don't think the specific issue of people owning animals for the purpose of companionship needs its own separate article. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Dubious PoV. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
There could perhaps be a missional page on this subject, but not this (sorry). Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreeing on changing it to an Essay, if kept.ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Make it an essay or delete. Would not be averse to a general article on domestic animal more generally focused on debunking. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Last time I checked, RW wasn't taken over by the PETA or worse koooks.--Arisboch (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
POV more suitable in essay space. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Animalian again? Kill it with fire. --Castaigne (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
And serve it as bbq :D --Arisboch (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Social Justice Warrior | Result: Keep[edit]

Social Justice Warrior – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

I, personally, think this article can be unleashed, however I'm willing to cede ground for this article to be improved. When I first read it, I thought "I must be in Funspace," but I turned out to be wrong. The opening of the article does a terrible job of defining what a "social justice warrior" is or where it comes from. Furthermore, it neglects when/where the term would be encountered. The "types" section doesn't actually list types of SJWs but, instead, lists the types of people who are critical of them. The "Response" and "Websites infested by SJWs" are complete garbage and worthy of the Funspace, certainly not the mainspace. Better to start from scratch or go with the original redirect, for the reasons I stated. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you implying that being complete garbage and being worthy of Funspace are somehow synonymous? o_O 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
No, but I'm saying that the items in question are not worthy of being in a mainspace article. If the article were in Funspace, then I suppose they'd be par for the course there. But in terms of mainspace-level quality, those two sections are garbage. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It is entirely unclear this is an improvement on no article at all - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

The term is used often enough that there probably should be an article on it. The current content may well be flawed, but is that not an argument for fixing the article up as opposed to deleting it? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Needs a lot of work and more snark. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 13:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's fix, not delete Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Improve. --Castaigne (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Needs a tonne of work, but is linked to enough to show that it is germane. Whatever happened to these people? Many of them came in full of piss and vinegar and have not edited in many months. They said they were going to make the concept a focus of ours, it would seem that this article should be germane to their interests? ^{— Unsigned, by: AgingHippie / talk / contribs} 14:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Move the stuff about SJWs from Social Justice to the SJW article, but keep it. This term is notable for being used and abused.--Arisboch (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Reading this page left me feeling the need to do something that didn't involve the internet. I'd go out for a walk but it's gone midnight and I'd have to get dressed again. Anyway, I think we need it. Spud (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
If only for the 'Origins' section, which is actually interesting and informative. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Keepity keep. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
RationalWiki should have an article about SJWs (and why they are terrible, irrational, cult-like people that make the world a worse place for everyone). Hmmph (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

How does the article look as of now? The origins section is effectively complete (unless anyone wants to shorten it), and I'm looking for help with attacking SJW as a criticism. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Gay-themed films | Result: Deleted[edit]

Gay-themed films – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

An off-mission mess of a listicle Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Speedy. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 13:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Making a copy of it for my own personal use, but yes, off-mission. --Castaigne (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Fukken saved, too.--Arisboch (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

o-o FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 13:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Because I'm a terrorist!} 13:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 13:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I see on the talk page that people have been moaning about it being crap for six years. Spud (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
dunno if i can vote and looks to be largely academic anyways, but i fucking loathe this article, for the reasons i have already stated on the talk page. There is so much than can be said for gay themes in cinema that could be on missionable that this piece of shit doesnt even try to address. I fail to see why some are bothering to make copies. even as a list of 'gay themed' films it is hopeless. i say this not as a noisy gay but as a fan of cinema AMassiveGay (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The portrayal of homosexuality in popular media (and films in general) might be interesting, but this is not a very good page as it stands. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if my vote counts, but shouldn't the article mention the Fraser/Hurley remake of Bedazzled? I mean, Fraser's character comes home with the girl of his dreams, only to be outed to her by his "roommate" who proves his point by asking Our Hero to name the cast of the off-Broadway run of The Pajama Game, amirite? CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Keep (there are enough books or persons being written about here not, because they're really that good or notable, but cause it'd send right-wing's panties in a twist) --Arisboch (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Daryush Valizadeh | Result: Keep, 6-1[edit]

Daryush Valizadeh – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not terribly important and was already adequately covered under the Return of Kings section of the Manosphere article. Does not need a separate article. Delete this and revert Manosphere. Castaigne (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

This person is notable enough given the number of references on RW, and his association with Gamergate. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Substantial article, many links in, GG loon, MRA loon, NRx loon, trans- & homophobic loon. Keep. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Nah, on-mission and there's enough on Roosh for an article on him - David Gerard (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep it, he's notable for this whole GG horseshit.--Arisboch (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
He made it on national TV to embarrass himself, as well as an author of a number of terrible books about a subject he knows almost nothing about, seems notable enough. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Enough about this dude to make a page it seems Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Mount Rushmore | Result: Burned to ash.[edit]

Mount Rushmore – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

It's been a week since this page was created. It's still a shitty stub that doesn't explain how the monument has any relevance to our mission. Spud (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
This page's a bad joke from the start. Lazer it.--Arisboch (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Missionality not found. The sculptor's political views aren't really relevant, are they? Bicycle^wheel 16:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
^^^No not really. We don't cover Hitler's painting's for much the same reason. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Better to remove the redlink here than to add off-mission content. There's marginally missional stuff somewhere in Mount Rushmore's story, but not worth the effort. MarmotHead (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Out with this nonsense! Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 19:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I will say that this article is about this plank in the Rationalwiki platform:

"Documenting the full range of crank ideas.", and remember, the sculptor was both a Republican and a member of the KKK. Carptrash (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

The article contains the words, "perhaps there should not even be an article about it here." so . . ...perhaps not. When ever I run across a red link I think about creating an article. So I did for this one. Carptrash (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe you should have thought just a little longer? Bicycle^wheel 16:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  - I'm more of a feeling type than a thinking one. Carptrash (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
A casual reading of the wikipedia page indicates there may be material for a RW article, but the current article is a bit shit... Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Da moon | Result: Deleted[edit]

Da moon – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Obviously troll article. Shoot to ~~thrill~~ kill. Arisboch (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This sort of nonsense can just be nuked, and doesn't need a deletion discussion IMHO. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there a fast-delete thread or would I just have to ask an mod/admin?--Arisboch (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

College Conspiracy | Result: Keep[edit]

College Conspiracy – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Nobody wants to improve it, apparently; it currently has 0 references, poor grammar, and may be utterly incorrect. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Sorry, tater, you nominate too many things. This isn't wikipedia, and unless the page is misleading, I don't really see the problem with its lack of refs for a "basic quality standards" thing. I personally want to see a better deletion reason than "no one fixed this procedural problem". ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Just look at the article content and tell me it's worth keeping. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Literally what I just did when I put down this keep vote. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you should delete it. I don't need to provide any references for this article because just watch the film College Conspiracy to realize how much BS the whole film really is. The film just pulls statistics out of their ass to prove their bs agenda. The makers of the documentary, College Conspiracy, are obviously trying to push an agenda. That is to sell you gold and silver instead of going to college. College Conspiracy is a pseudointellectual documentary about promoting people to buy gold and silver rather than going to college. It is a waste of freaking time. --DesuMaiden (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you had left us. (A lot of people start an article and head for the hills; apologies.) Have any other skeptics looked at thi movie? If so, you could certainly cite them. Otherwise, you could cite the movie, with timestamps. While citation isn't necessary, it really does help; see Seeds of Death for an example of why. Basically, we just need some way to know that the movie says what we say it does, and that we aren't strawmanning. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I can provide you a link to the movie. That's all I need for citations for this movie. And then provide you guys some addition citations. Here's a link to the movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EKolPL5Cdc --DesuMaiden (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Because Fuzzy waited 2 days to declare the article had no future and thus we must delete. --Miekal 00:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Jesus fucking Christ. That's not why I suggested a delete, and you know it. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a good start. Also, what David said. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Missional on the face of it, but any sort of sourcing would be a really nice thing - David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Woo-meisters | Result: Keep[edit]

Category:Woo-meisters – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Meaningless -- what does "meister" mean, plus "woo" is kinda dumb. Redundant. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 16:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
"Meister" means master, typically with the connotation of being a purveyor. I believe it's a colloquial derivation of "maestro". "Woo" is deeply ingrained in the skeptical nomenclature and isn't going away. It's a term for broad collections of non-scientific claims with supernatural elements. It's subtly different from pseudoscience promoters, who can support non-supernatural pseudosciences. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I know what meister means -- what I mean here is, is that "meister" is ill-defined. How much woo must one promote before one becomes a meister? Pseudoscience promoters is much more clear-cut -- either they promote pseudoscience, or they don't. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 18:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It's true that the term, as we're using it, is just a a synonym for "pseudoscience promoters". That makes it a duplicate category. Spud (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't call something like intelligent design 'woo', or someone like Kem Ham a "woo-meister". yet it certainly is pseudo-science. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Wēāŝēīōīď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Why? Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

No reason to remove - David Gerard (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Why have duplicate categories? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 18:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
If only because fuzzy has declared a crusade against a well used word in the community. stupid reason to delete is stupid. --Miekal 04:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not exactly the same as pseudoscience, and I like the word woo-meister. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 12:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Why remove Bubba41102 ^{Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor} 12:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It's duplicate. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 13:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
There may be some overlap, but it is not duplicate. Woo includes "spiritual" nonsense such as past lives, with no significant pseudoscience involvement. Ken Ham pushes pseudoscience, not woo. No need to conflate the two and stir them up into an amorphous mess. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Nothing to hide argument | Result: keep[edit]

Nothing to hide argument – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not fertile ground for a developed article Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Why would you want to censor the content of this article? Do you have something to hide, hmm? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Improve, not delete.--Arisboch (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Plenty of room to improve. For instance, it's not explained why it's a fallacy. Bicycle^wheel 19:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Improve not delete. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 19:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
On the ground that it will be improved, as this is an actual argument people make. a lot. --Miekal 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I see this frequently, and discuss topics that naturally lead to it even more frequently, and I always have trouble articulating why it's wrong. Improve, don't delete. <3 C^{Sapphire bullets of pure love} 20:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Improve. Do not delete. Argument is used often. --Castaigne (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Improve. Definitely on-mission, and current page isn't crap enough to warrant deletion. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep. It's a common(ish) argument and relevant to RationalWiki. There's enough to say about the fallacy for it to warrant its own article. —Bilorv (smells) 17:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Castle. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep, as nothing to hide, and add salient examples seen in the wild. MaillardFillmore (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Dam, people've been really keep-y lately. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 19:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Possibly because all the total crap has been deleted? Or maybe it's summer so everyone's, like, mellow. Bicycle^wheel 20:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The stub is rather insubstantial and I also find it odd to characterise this as an argument that's only relevant to government surveillance. Only a couple of days of days ago we had a RW editor making this argument in favour of doxxing. The stub could be rewritten & expanded but a better starting point might be adding a paragraph or two on this in the privacy article, and then separating that out to its own page if & when it gathers enough content & examples. Wéáśéĺóíď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
If you are going to keep it, cut the "argument" from the title. At the very least, it will be easier to link.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I tried moving it, but that broke the link in the delete template. After it survives this attempt, the article should live at nothing to hide. MaillardFillmore (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  - Since there's already a redirect from nothing to hide, is it really that important to change the title? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    - That redirect is new, an artifact of my aborted attempt to move the article. No big whoop, but the shorter title is still better, IMO. MaillardFillmore (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
      - I don't see how it's better, to be honest. It's an article about the nothing to hide argument, not about the phrase "nothing to hide". Many instances where the argument is used don't even explicitly mention the phrase. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Rebuttals of Gamergate | Result: keepity keep[edit]

Rebuttals of Gamergate – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

How many articles on Gamergate does one wiki need? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Ugh this was a shit idea. Why did you go through with it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong, first you complain that you aren't allowed to use enough space to rebut GG. Then I give space to rebut GG. And what do you do? Complain. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 20:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Eh, at least he's agreeing with AgingHippie on something for once. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No, my complaints were that everything was being cut out without actual acknowledgement of context. This is just a mess that I have no intention to work on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
So you've no interest in writing a page that responds to GG's talking points, rather than endlessly arguing on the talkpage? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You haven't really produced one of those. You just skimmed the main page weeks ago and took out what you thought were major talking points.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Like Tyler Wilde and Anne Lewis? If you feel other talking points should be included, add them. We need a rebuttal to GG. Right now, ~~your~~ our Gamergate page reads like a really really long history, with few responses. I'd love to have a page debunking every single GG talking point; right now, we don't have one, and as far as I know, nobody does. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

GG has talking points worth a damn? News to me. --Castaigne (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Nobody said they were good, right, or sensible; to some extent, that lack of validity is why we cover them. PacWalker 02:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'd vote keep if and only if the main GG article is thinned out as a result of this article's existence. But alas, we all know Ryu's forces will not let it happen. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

~~^{This taste... it's of a liar!} 20:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)~~ Nevermind. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{By the way, 2 divided into 666 is 333} 20:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

- Why not? Now he has somewhere to move the article's content. Before, he had to watch as stuff he wrote was slowly burned away. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a fan of the "rebutting X" format. On rationalwiki, if X needs to be rebutted, that's for the X article to do. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
When Ryulong did that on the main Gamergate article, it was cut down 50%. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Which was good. You don't refute every damned thing a group of people happen to say. That's a matter of general good writing. To become too focused on details and lose the directness and straightforwardness of summary discussion is bad. Just in general. Unless you're writing a non-fiction book, of course. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree the cutting was good. But we should see Gamergaters like YECs. They both have debunked yet widely spread arguments and impact on culture. Both merit debunking. We can have the GG article for a history and brief discussion and the rebuttal article for an indepth debunking, like RW's many indepth debunkings of YEC screeds. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Enough to actually rebut GG's claims. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 20:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
We already got loads of rebuttal pages on various topics, I don't see the harm in having one on Gamergate claims too. And it opens up opportunities to shorten the main Gamergate article, which some people insist is way too long. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
We have rebuttals for other articles, so as long as this helps to keep the main article from being such a bloatfest, I'm game. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, FCP's argument for keeping it is pretty sound. Keep. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Because I'm a terrorist!} 21:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Read it. Looks good. Seems missional. Keepity keep. --Castaigne (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, relevant (and I'd argue important) to mission, I vote keep. Bazer63 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice to have a one-stop shop for when I have to talk to these people, as opposed to having to dig through the main article, or worse, the entire internet <3 C^{Sapphire bullets of pure love} 04:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

If it helps with honing down the main Gamergate article to a readable length & coherent narrative, have at it. But it doesn't seem ideal for mainspace. I suggest collaborative essay. & The title is awful. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Why essay? We have tons of "rebuttal" pages, like "Question Evolution! - CMI's Rebuttals to General Objections to the 15 Questions". If the title's bad, what's a better one? Rebuttals to Gamergate? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest "common Gamergate arguments". |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Yo, gatorade me bitch!} 22:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest "The bullshit claims that Gamergate perpetuates". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It might have been useful to have an article on Gamergate. But the sheer volume of information given the topic is just ridiculous. I mean seriously, Wikipedia's World War II page is about 226Kb, and the GG article is currently half that. In the grand scheme of things, GG amounts to a fart in the wind. CorruptUser (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
And the Wikipedia article on The Biggest Loser Pinoy Edition (season 1) is about 631 Kb. It's almost like the historical importance of an article's topic and its size don't have to meaningfully correlate. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

First, GamerGate will have an long-lasting effect on internet and geek culture. In hindsight, Racefail in 2008-2009 was only the opening salvo in this culture war. Secondly, to reiterate the BoN, importance and size do not correlate. I disagree entirely; there is not too much information on GamerGate. --Castaigne (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That said, I think (that in the main article) history presently obscures issues and errors in claims somewhat, though I won't rule out an isochoric solution. PacWalker 02:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh my goat, this is only halfway the same argument as the last seventeen! PacWalker 06:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I lean towards delete, but as Weaseloid said, if it helps keep down the length of the GG article, then it might be worth it. As it is, I think we have about 1000 times more words than are necessary about GG on RW already, so I guess the danger is that this just turns into another GG page, with more detail, not less as the end result. Worm (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Better title: "An index of Gamergate claims". Or, if you wish to sacrifice the reference in favor of utility, "List of Gamergate claims".--ZooGuard (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The page has some useful background info that was scraped away from the big main article. Over time this page may be more useful as a "List of..." style page as ZG says above. Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems like this is becoming a wiki of lists. What are we, BuzzFeed now? Щєазєюіδ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
71 articles for deletion you can't miss! PacWalker 20:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

53 Psuedoscientists who are full of shit! --Madman (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Madman

42 Pieces of Woo and Bullshit You Won't Believe Secretly Control Your Mind! |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Antonio stella bottom tile} 02:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we make a list page that lists the list pages on RationalWiki? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
We already have Category:Lists. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{We exist in different epistemological paradigms, fuckpants!} 02:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

pffft, the category is boring. the list list would be fun and listy 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Inevitable result: Fun:List of lists of lists PacWalker 16:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll gladly rename the article once AFD is over. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
7 against, 3 for. Done? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you crazy? It's way too soon! ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pseudohistorians | Result: Moved to Category:Pseudohistory promoters[edit]

Category:Pseudohistorians – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

It was created today by ScepticWombat (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) , who has put in it the people previously in Category:Pseudohistory. I really don't like the name - "pseudohistorian" would be someone who explicitly claims to be an historian without bein one, so it is not an appropriate label for all of the people currently listed in the category. ZooGuard (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the category is useful but the name is bad. Maybe "pseudohistory promoters", like "Category:pseudoscience promoters"? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 12:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
That would be a better formulation, yes.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Keep, possibly as "pseudohistory promoters". Though I see nothing whatsoever wrong with the present name - note it's the name of the corresponding Wikipedia category, for example - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I voted delete because you can't move (rename) categories like articles, at least not without WP's category direct recategorization bot. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 15:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I created the category based on the example of Thomas DiLorenzo who was tagged as a historian, despite having no qualifications while all of his "historical" writings (or at least those he is known for) are in pseudohistory territory - David Irving is another good example. It's no odder to have a separate category for pseudohistorians and one for pseudohistory than the ones for historians/history - hence why I copied the templates from the latter into the former. That's also why I haven't moved all the names from the pseudohistory category into pseudohistorians. For instance, I left out Don McLeroy and Murray Rothbard who are not known for writing pseudohistory (I removed Alan Dershowitz because I didn't recognise him as one who pushes pseudohistory at all). Pseudohistorian and historian are not to be viewed as mutually exclusive categories (you can be a trained historian who has gone off the deep end and support all kinds of pseudohistory - a sort of parallel to the Nobel disease. For instance, Peter James is tagged as both a historian and pseudohistorian). The downside of choosing "pseudohistorian" over "pseudohistory promoter" is that, apparently, some readers here seem to interpret the former as someone who lacks any relevant credentials. The problem with the "pseudohistory promoter", I think, is that it could include those who simply push other people's crankery. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
A historian is a person who researches & writes about history, not necessarily a member of a university's history faculty nor somebody with a qualification in history as an academic field. ωεαşεζøίɗ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree - that would at most be an amateur historian, for instance I don't think those who research their family tree qualify as historians. Similarly, researching and writing about science doesn't (necessarily) make you a scientist (this description would fit a science journalist, for instance). ScepticWombat (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Somebody who publishes books on history, including family histories, can reasonably be described as a historian. If they research stuff in their spare time for their own interest only, they can be described as an amateur historian. Neither of these is defined by qualifications. Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I still disagree - just like publishing books on science doesn't necessarily make you a scientist, publishing books on history doesn't necessarily make you a historian. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ummm, this is actually one of the reasons I dislike differentiating it into a separate category - even if it's intended to contain only a subset of the people in the main category, it's very easy for some well-meaning category-cleaner to interpret it as "people related to pseudohistory go in this subcategory" and move everyone there, rendering moot any careful per-case deliberations about applying the label. Like every wiki, RW has its share of template-diddlers and obsessive reorganizers.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
By that line of reasoning, we should also start removing all those in the historians category into the history one. Either there's a point in having separate categories for a topic and its practitioners, or we might as well start deleting all "practitioner categories". Starting to make such extremely broad "catch-all categories" just because some editor might not understand such distinctions is not, I think, a particularly strong argument for dispensing with subtlety because nothing is ever foolproof. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not valid. Most of our categories about a pseudoscience have a related "people who do this pseudoscience" category. The "pseudohistorians" category seems like it's that category; people will move articles. In comparison, the historians category is clearly delineated on specialty. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 19:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
"In comparison, the historians category is clearly delineated on specialty." Not according to the broad definition used by Weaseloid above it's not... ScepticWombat (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Any historian, regardless of experience, can be categorized based on their primary subject. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 20:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I thought about whether Marija Gimbutas should be tagged as a historian. Strictly speaking, she was an archaeologist, but I thought about tagging her as historian+pseudohistorian to emphasise her legitimate degree and work in conjunction with her crankery. Any ideas? ScepticWombat (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

3 people for renaming so far, 1 for not. (Just noting.) FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 02:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Make that 4 people for renaming. I think it should be "Pseudohistory promoters" and the category should include people who came up with the nutty ideas as well as cranks who've promoted them without coming up with any new ones of their own. Just because Wikipedia does it one way doesn't mean that we can't do it better. Spud (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
5 people for renaming. I like the name "Psudohistory promoters" for the category, and think that the category is useful.Make haste slowly (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The majority wants renaming; I'll do so. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Personality disorder | Result: Keep[edit]

Personality disorder – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Largely pointless and rife with questionably sourced speculation. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{I've been a bad, bad boy, Father} 22:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

~~Yeah, sure. This could be missional, but right now it's some weird stuff about gender and PD. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)~~

Keep[edit]

₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Could use a bit of expansion/elaboration in some areas, but isn't bad as-is. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Gender influencing psychologists' appraisals? No way! αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
--Castaigne (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This page seems okay. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Peru | Result: Keep[edit]

Peru – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Little to no content, off mission Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 18:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Bubba. Kill it. --Castaigne (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Most of South America is already represented on rationalwiki. If anything, I think we should add Ecuador for parity's sake. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Stub, but can grow.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
^ Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If we remove Peru, might as well remove the US. CorruptUser (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Could be expanded, but as is is way too off mission Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 18:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do you vote twice? Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
5:2, vote's been up for 5 days. Can we close it? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 18:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Mitochondria | Result: Kept[edit]

Mitochondria – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not missional.Castaigne (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed not missional Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 20:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
No thanks. It was an uphill struggle to reduce the number of "pure science" articles last time round. This has no relevance to the mission. Bicycle^wheel 20:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

seems like missional elements exist. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I seem to be counsel for the devil today. Nonetheless it can be made missional w.r.t anti-oxidant crazes, endosymbiosis, and probably more, and a general overview wouldn't be a bad thing to have on the page also. Walker Walker Walker 20:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree, could be topical. For instance The rebranding of autism by antivaccinationists as a mitochondrial disorder, Mitochondrial Eve, etc. Also I did a search for "mitochondrial woo" but only found research by DK Woo on the subject. Keep it up, Dr. Woo. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Could be made missional. Like horizontal gene transfer, understanding the origins of mitochondria can play a part in debunking simplistic creationist views of genetics. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Mitochondria woo is a real thing, and I don't see a page on that. The woo is so powerful that it causes fictional New York cops to forget the plot when they go to a sequel. That's just awful. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 21:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
If it were an article focusing on mitochondria woo, I'd support it. But for just an article about mitochondria, just go to Wikipedia. --Castaigne (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Your command is my wish, sir. Allow some time, perchance, that it may be set upon the course you seek? Walker Walker Walker 21:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
(In Picard voice) Bake it so. --Castaigne (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that we should make it about the woo. Mine's a "keep and change" vote. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 22:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Missional. Merge with the userspace article. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There's plenty of interesting stuff to be said about mitochondria. Not super-missional at the moment, but it's a fresh new article, let's give it some time. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
As noted below, the article already exists. CorruptUser (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Mitochondrion is a redirect to a userspace version, which is less about woo/IDiots/c. than mitochondria, but there's probably some stuff to use in both. Walker Walker Walker 22:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
What the above people said. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
This is the deciding vote. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Might be good to have a section somewhere as part of a cancer or genetics page, not sure if it deserves its own page. CorruptUser (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Should possibly live at mitochondrion. Walker Walker Walker 20:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh hey look what's there! Walker Walker Walker 21:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

H-1B Visa | Result: Delete by 4:1 (without redirect) 6:1 (with redirect) (redirected)[edit]

H-1B Visa – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Doesnt further mission Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 18:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
~~Great reason brah. PacWalker 18:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)~~
Sorry somone shut off my ocmputer right as i was about to change the reason Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 18:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, great fun, that is. I see. PacWalker 18:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Nah. --Castaigne (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
7 years after creation and it's still shit. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
As is, it's poorly explained & poorly analysed. Plus it's only linked from about three other articles and I can't foresee many others needing to mention it, so I doubt it's worth the effort that would be involved in turning it into a proper article. Ŵêâŝêîôîď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Kill. Merge relevant info to immigration. Redirect. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 21:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Not the greatest, but somewhat mission-related, and would be oddly difficult to shove into existing immigration pages. PacWalker 18:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
As i said eralier an article on Immigration visas Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 18:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

could be mixed into an article on Immigration visas Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 18:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
redirect to Immigration, or somesuch article. Bicycle^wheel 20:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, put my vote for redirect per the pedaled one. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Champagne socialist | Result: Kept[edit]

Champagne socialist – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Largely a pointless hit job on a strawman |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{I'm sorry, dear. I'm reading Pokemon horror stories for the internet.} 20:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Concur. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree, Massive edit war invlolved Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 20:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
So? I'm pretty sure articles on many subjects have had "edit wars", both here and on Wikipedia. Should that be a reason for removal? Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

check the edit history, one is incredibly long and not spov, and one is incredibly short ^{— Unsigned, by: Bubba41102 / talk / contribs} 21:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

The page makes sense, some edits by some users don't. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
But only on the condition we fix it into a discussion of the phenomenon and why it's bullshit to say the upper class can't socialist. Otherwise, delete--Miekal 20:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly because it's used as a snarl word I think it merits an article. But the original version was pretty crap. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Something on the snarling usage, maybe some of the discussion Miekal mentions. PacWalker 22:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Fine and useful as-is, could do with development - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Could be funnified (and moved accordingly). PacWalker 20:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
RW does have other snarl word pages so this could make sense in that context.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
For general informational purposes, the term was first used in 1906. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and put that in the article. Thank you. PacWalker 21:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Debate:Should People who make bad medical descisions be given treatment | Result: Kept[edit]

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Debate:Should People who make bad medical descisions be given treatment – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

We don't delete debates. Ŵêâŝêîôîď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
This is so meta my "Let's not use AfD for deleting AfDs." vote turned into a delete vote. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
If you think this AfD of an AfD shouldn't be here, you could always nominate it for deletion . . . Wēāŝēīōīď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Nah, then it'd get so meta it'd break the wiki. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

[EC] Naah, just coop everyone who hasn't chimed in by midnight GMT. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
*waits* PacWalker 00:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Debate:Should People who make bad medical descisions be given treatment | Result: Kept[edit]

Debate:Should People who make bad medical descisions be given treatment – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Possible end of the civilized word Bubba41102 ^{42 is love 42 is life} 13:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
If you're regretting your proposal, just edit it to that effect, e.g. like the ~~strikethrough~~ stuff I wrote below followed by my revised opinion. Changing your mind is not a problem, it's a good sign, and no one (or at least no one sensible) will think any less of you if that change of heart stays on the record. Hence, I don't see why a delete is necessary, nor am I sure debates are eligible since this page is meant for articles. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see this going in any useful direction. Better to let it fade back into the bushes. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete - There really isn't a debate or difference in opinion allowed. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, being criticized or having your opinion confused/conflated with someone else's is totally the same thing as being persecuted for thought crimes. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Debate is debate. I don't think we should arbitrate on which debates are 'worthy' of the site. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, WTF? Since when has either RW or its mob begun to delete debates just because someone doesn't like the proposal, or it's terribly written/formatted? Sure, you may find a proposal reprehensible or the formatting and language close to incomprehensible, but that's why people can respond - it's called a debate. If we were talking something like mikemikev's race trolling, I might understand it, but this one? Really? When no one (myself included) suggested any curbing of LogicMaster's "states are religions"-crankery which was simply repeated in several debates and essays? ScepticWombat (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Look carefully, and you will see that the originator of this debate is the one who put it up for deletion. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
~~And it matters why? If the originator wants it deleted, (s)he can delete it.~~ On second thought, no. A stupid debate stands. Just stop contributing to it and it'll simply die (like all the other debates). I really don't see why a delete is even necessary (nor am I sure debates are actually eligible for a delete vote anyway). ScepticWombat (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a debate. Stupid debate is still debate. This is even more stupid than the Chicken Coop deletion. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 22:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleting a page isn't how you let something "fade back into the bushes." It also fails to meat the criteria for an existential threat to human civilization. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record, "fade back into the bushes" was my way of expressing sympathy for what I took to be Bubba's regret at putting up such a weak premise in the first place. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
That's fair, though I agree with ScepticWombat's comment in regard to how that might preferably be resolved. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Stupidity and debate and stupidity in debate are sorta features of RW - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Are debate pages even elegible for AfD? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{Oraoraoraoraoraoraoraora!!!} 16:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Not an article. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
^ Exactly, that's why I voted to keep. It shouldn't even be posted here. And I think I'd better remind those who "goated" so far that although the arguments looks very much like "Keep" votes (i.e. that debates are ineligible for deletion nominations), as long as you're goating, your opinions don't count in the delete/keep score. Basically, if you think that debates are ineligible for deletion, you might want to put in a keep vote too. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Farsight | Result: Keep[edit]

Farsight – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

If this is a just an attempt to recreate a deleted article under a different name, I say delete. Spud (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I zapped this as an attack page trashing BLP, which it is. Asinine first-para disclaimer notwithstanding - David Gerard (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

As this article's main author, I'd hoped to avoid snarking about Farsight personally, just about Farsight's theories and modes of argumentation. I also was careful to give lots of references to various posts by Farsight in various places. I even wanted to avoid stating speculations about Farsight's identity. How does this article compare to the earlier article on John Duffield? --Lpetrich (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It's already been deleted. I suggest you lay out a solid case to restore it. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The fact that its about John means that you can name it whatever you want, it's still already deleted. --Miekal 20:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
That assumes any article about Mr. Duffield should not exist; it's possible there's a case for an article. If lpetrich wants an article, he has to make that case. This also includes arguments about Mr. Duffield's frequent use of the word "libel". FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 21:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

My case:
1. Farsight has shown up in numerous online forums and comment sections, presenting his theories of physics. However, these theories have numerous errors, and it would be helpful to collect explanations of these errors. The errors cover a wide range, from the nature of time to the natures of elementary particles. They include the likes of denial that elementary particles have non-rotation angular momentum and that the notion the Higgs mechanism is contrary to what Einstein said about mass and energy. The mission of RationalWiki includes "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement" and "Documenting the full range of crank ideas", so a debunking of Farsight's theories would fit right in.
2. Farsight claims superior expertise in relativity, electrodynamics, particle physics, and the like. Furthermore, he supports his claims with quotes from heroes of science like Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Minkowski, and Feynman, and he claims that commonly-presented versions of their theories have errors from their departing from the originals. The idea that he is returning to what these heroes had taught is an idea that may unduly impress some people. Especially since some of these heroes are well-known as heroes. The article shows that these heroes often did not have the beliefs that Farsight attributes to them. It could be improved by clarifying that science does not proceed by its heroes issuing revelations, but is instead a collective enterprise.
3. Farsight uses forms of argument that are typical of theology and similar fields, but that are rare in the physical sciences, even in physical pseudosciences. This alone is very distinctive.
4. This article avoids speculating about Farsight's identity, and instead, works from what someone using the handle "Farsight" has posted in various places, complete with links to the original pages. The article contains a small fraction of the possible references that one could make to Farsight's online statements.
5. This article avoids making snarky comments about Farsight himself, reserving them for his theories and methods. Or at least I had hoped. I also tried to keep its tone calm and sober.
6. John Duffield has been known to threaten to sue people for libel for stating unflattering things about him. The article is about "Farsight" rather than about "John Duffield", and it is based on statements posted under the name "Farsight". So John Duffield will have to state under penalty of perjury that Farsight is him. Furthermore, he lives in the United Kingdom, a nation with a reputation for being a destination of libel tourism, though that has changed with the Defamation Act 2013. The United States, however, tends to be more strict about what qualifies as libel than the United Kingdom. I do not pretend to be an expert on libel law, but it is unlikely that anything that any of us have posted here on this issue would qualify as libel in most US jurisdictions. In fact, several US ones have anti-SLAPP laws, SLAPP being strategic lawsuit against public participation, using the legal system for harassment. ^{— Unsigned, by: Lpetrich / talk / contribs} 09:32, 20 April 2015‎
Browsing through the deleted Farsight article, I can't see any reason that it shouldn't be restored. It attacks the scientific validity of Farsight's ideas and Farsight's semi-apologetic/quasi-religious style of argumentation. This is markedly different from the vaporised John Duffield article which targeted a named person, not an online pseudonym, and where the ridicule might far easier be construed as libel (using terms such as crank and cook etc.) - an especially iffy prospect given Duffield's threatening behaviour and that as a British resident he can avail himself of the ludicrously lax UK libel laws. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I second the Wombat. --Castaigne (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 11:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This article is about Farsight. Don't see any mention of Duffield here. Since on-mission and not about Duffield, I see no problem. --Castaigne (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Farsight = Duffield FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 19:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That might be so, but there isn't any information in the article that would confirm or tell me that. Or you that. And saying so would be, well, rampant speculation absent additions to the article. Picking up what I'm putting down? --Castaigne (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I can go out of my way to name name, say, Hovind in an article about him, but the article is still about Hovind. Uust because we don't mention him by name doesn't change anything. --Miekal 14:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Duffield said pretty much exactly what Miekal said. Mr. Duffield knows who the article is about; if we're worried about libel, this hasn't changed his view of the article. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

This article's subject is John Duffield. John Duffield was deleted. This article may also merit deletion. If it does not, some distinction should be made between the original article and this article. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So...you don't care if it gets deleted or not? Bicycle^wheel

16:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like an article on this subject. But since the last one failed so badly in votes, I don't even wanna bother voting. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 17:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fun:Subway diet | Result: has been rewritten to be funnier[edit]

Fun:Subway diet – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

??? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 23:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No seriously what is this αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 01:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Utter crap. Spud (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Subway diet already exists, and the fun page is just not funny. Sorry. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
^--Miekal 16:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
^too ScepticWombat (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

~~!!!~~ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Changing my vote to: "Replace the current page with Ikanreed and Carpetsmoker's comments." 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
A reference to this piece of real-world idiocy which achieved some fame at the time - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Then can some actual context be added into the article? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 11:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
We already have an article on it though, this is for the crappy funspace version--Miekal 16:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Conditional vote: Must be changed to be about eating subway trains. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 17:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
See? Plenty of good material, including my own original Datsun/Datson joke! Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 17:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I have done this thing, and it needs so much work. I'm painfully unfunny. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
So, replace with mine? Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 03:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Conditional vote: Siding with Narky here. There's good opportunity for better humor. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If we deleted funspace articles for not being funny there'd be about six left. Bicycle^wheel 18:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
We'd have six cows? PacWalker 19:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

This goat is also a vote, because this page simply needs more goat. I am voting for goat. PacWalker 23:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Aww, you should've used 3 goat icons. Evil combo breaker! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Well goats can be evil sometimes after all. PacWalker 23:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Evil goats?!? :O 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You kids are adorable. MaillardFillmore (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this would be a good fun page if it were about dieting by only eating actual subway trains. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You can eat anything while in the subway and not gain weight due to the quantum gravitational tunnelling effect which detoxes the heavy metals from the food and adds positive ion energy (with particular high amounts of quantum flux state charges). Note that it is *required* for the subway to be moving *at least* 50kph, otherwise it won't work. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but semi-metric units like that are dumb. PacWalker 16:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You want to replace hours with kiloseconds? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
For timekeeping? Not necessarily, but for derived units like that hours kind of ruin the point of going metric IMO. PacWalker 16:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much everybody except people from the US and UK are accustomed to using kilometers instead of miles for long distances, so a "point of going metric" doesn't really facture into it for most folks. And measuring how many kilometers you travel in a second isn't particularly useful unless you'll be approximating the speed of light, so people use hours instead. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Metars par second is best metars. :P PacWalker 17:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Aren't kph and km/h the same? The 'official' SI way is of course km/h, but SI isn't the same as the "metric system". I don't see how this is a 'semi-metric unit'? Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
His complaint is about hours not being an official SI unit. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It is canon that Narkys eat subway trains. Please, Narkify this article. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 16:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Reputation.com | Result: moved to reputation management[edit]

Reputation.com – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

failed mission discussion two years ago, let's settle this. Maybe there ought to be an article on reputation management, but maybe not on particular companies that do this. Bicycle^wheel 10:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

ehh. Move to reputation management or similar. This is a pretty missiony area, there's a lot of BS and scamming and impossible claims - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
^ Yes. With only minimal rewriting this could be a general Reputation management article. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Move per above. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Wiki (português) | Result: Deleted[edit]

Wiki (português) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Most of this page is made up of a "how to guide" on wiki editing and several lists which seem to name every wiki that the article's creator knows, including Wikivoyage, a Portuguese "WikiBirds" and Pornopedia. Then there's all the stuff that used to be on the deleted "Wikipédia (português)" page and more of the same, including a cartoon which shows Jimbo Wales himself stopping most of the world from editing Wikipedia so he can keep it for himself and his friends. There's not much of any relevance to our mission here. Spud (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Not missional, impossible for just about any other established editor to collaborate on it or to meaningfully check out its quality. Purge this and all other similar articles. Show this guy how to start his own wiki. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm the other one person that can understand anything LTR is saying, but frankly it takes more than one person for assessing quality. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{We exist in different epistemological paradigms, fuckpants!} 12:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Per AgingHippie; frankly I'm quite a lot put out that this keeps on coming up over and over again. PacWalker 14:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we just not have his articles anymore? We don't have a portugese community, and so many of the articles are delete worthy it seems. --Miekal 01:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Miekal. One person does not constitute a Portuguese community. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I reject your reality.} 12:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I hearby cede the "this user is adding more negative than positive" point. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I was prepared to stand up for this lone Brazilian but I read (Google translate) the article. A list & carping is all there is. Delete with extreme prejudice Scream!! (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Sou o autor do verbete. Por coerência voto por manter o verbete no RationalWiki. Discordo em alguns pontos: A Wikipédia em português possui verbetes sobre religião (exemplos: Madre Teresa de Calcutá, Chico Xavier, Testemunhas de Jeová etc.), sobre astrólogos (exemplo: Olavo de Carvalho) e sobre outros assuntos combatidos no RationalWiki. Além disso, o verbete é sobre qualquer Wiki (exemplos: CriaçãoWiki, Conservapedia, Metapedia etc.). Eu entendo que a Wikipédia (em português) é truculenta, partidária da Ditadura Militar (no Brasil), com administradores oportunistas que possuem motivações estranhas aos objetivos do Wikimedia Foundation. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm hoping that makes more sense to you than it did to Google, because all I got were these tidbits: they have articles on notable subjects and there are Brazilians. PacWalker 16:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Translation:
I'm the author of this entry. For reasons of consistency, I vote to keep this article at RationalWiki. I disagree on various points: Portuguese Wikipedia has articles about religion (e.g. Mother Theresa, Jehova's Witnesses), astrologists (Olavo de Carvalho) and other subjects we deal with here at RationalWiki, besides entries about miscellaneous wikis. I understand that Portuguese Wikipedia is antagonistic, supports the military dictatorship of Brasil (TL Note: wut) and is ruled by opportunistic admins who possess motivations outside the goals of Wikimedia Foundation.

Verdict: Bitter Wikipedia banee. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Jet Fuel Can't Melt Steel Beams} 12:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
But after all a project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive, amirite? Right? Right? PacWalker 12:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Did he say that we need to cover the wiki because it has articles on stuff we cover? If so, wtf kind of logic is that?--Miekal 14:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm more amused by the "supports the military dictatorship of Brasil" bit. Is it like Brazilian Godwin's Law? Who is the "military dictatorship of Brasil"? Does he hate Rousseff that much? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Yo man, I got a Bust A Nut.} 14:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
She probably talked about religion at some point. PacWalker 23:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

The aforementioned how-to guide is no longer there, so look in the fossil record if you must see it; I chopped it. PacWalker 23:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. And the unfair cartoon of Jimbo has been deleted. (Thank you, Miekal). If this article only dealt with wikis that are relevant to our mission, like Conservapedia, CreationWiki and Metapedia and, yes, even Wikipedia (minus the out of context quotes), then I wouldn't have a problem with it. RationalWiki is not the right place for posting lists of every wiki you know. I know I complained about Portuguese articles being short, but making a page longer doesn't always mean making it better. Spud (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Chicken coop | Result: It stays, even if ruffles Weaseloid's jimmies[edit]

RationalWiki:Chicken coop – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Rarely if ever now used for problems that couldn't be resolved with common sense & direct communication. Tends to encourage needless drama & pathetic tattletale behaviour rather than sincere attempts at conflict resolution. I think we can cope without it. Wéáśéĺóíď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It's quite entertaining for the too-common "Editor X hurt my feelings" rants which is exactly why it needs to go. MarmotHead (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
As a conflict resolution system it rarely actually resolves conflicts when it is used properly anyways. --Miekal 22:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Keep it for those instances where it is useful; encourage direct communication where appropriate. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree if it were used more as a last resort rather than how it's actually used: as the place to say "She breathed on my side of the couch!". MarmotHead (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{It took him 0.2 seconds to lock the door.} 03:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a lightning rod, keeps drama in one place and facilitates mob decisions. Getting rid of the coop won't get rid of the drama, but it will allow it to spread all over the wiki. Tielec01 (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
--ZooGuard (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see what would be achieved by deleting the coop. Any face to face stuff can simply (as Weaseloid just did) be copy/pasted to the relevant talk page, just like stuff more pertinent to the community standards can easily be copy/pasted to that forum with a notice attached. I think the coop remains useful for calling in the mob, but perhaps we shouldn't do that any more? ScepticWombat (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
What Tielec01 said. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
That, and what ScepticWombat said. It would be nice if we didnt have to do that any more, but given the self-selection of stroppy arseholes to be the usual run of RW contributors (and often useful ones) it's likely to keep on being needed. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I third both Tielec and ScepticWombat. --Castaigne (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
See Castaigne's justification. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm allowed to vote here, right? Anyhoohow, my thoughts have already been said. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 14:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Repurpose it for discussion and votes on site policies, because no one pays attention to RationalWiki talk:Community Standards and that's what it often ends up being used for anyway. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this a disguised keep vote? :P FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Depends on how you define a keep vote. I only wanna keep the title and the ONOZ and keyboard-assisted suicide pics, since those seem to motivate people into discussing and voting on things. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel like that might have more to do with the "editor X is in trouble" aspect, but who knows? PacWalker 03:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Quite possibly, but just being historically associated with that aspect might be enough to help. And there's also the fact that it's in a lot of people's watchlists, most likely. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
People are creatures of habit, so you have a point on the history thing. How much of one? I have no idea, but the watchlist point is a worthy and more... firm? consideration for sure. PacWalker 11:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Although the picture is rather amusing, so it should be kept somewhere. :P PacWalker 03:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Would it be named the goat pen if we repurposed it? PacWalker 03:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, that'd be a nice name too. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The reason nobody pays attention to the Community Standards talk is because nobody makes efforts to advertise any proposed changes. (Hint: the Intercom and the Saloon Bar exist.) And the reason for that is that most of the people with institutional knowledge and/or attempting community building have left.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It was advertised for plenty of time, no one just paid any attention to it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Wait a minute, I think we need to hold an exorcism as ZooGuard is clearly possessed by the ghost of Nutty Roux, or perhaps he's just channelling? ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
That isn't possible; nobody leaves and ever comes back. : P PacWalker 11:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that it's not nearly vindictive enough to be a Nutty-post. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it needs 3 insults to the RW community and a Parthian shot to be a Nutty post. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Antonio stella bottom tile} 16:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Parthian? The Mongols did it better. PacWalker 16:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone aside from Nutty ever figure out how to send a site-wide (urgent) message? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 14:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Special:Intercom appears to have a trail a mile long of the things. PacWalker 14:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
But all of the posts are from users with special privileges. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
He looks to have had staff and tech rights at the time, though, so... Never mind I'm just gonna shut up and think. PacWalker 15:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Tech rights are necessary. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I did say "keep", but it's a conditional keep. I think we should be much more stricter regarding coop cases. It should be the community's last resource, when direct negotitation between the parties fails. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Never got enough hugs as a kid} 16:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
But direct negotitation is rarely even attempted. Most coop cases I've seen lately just take the form of "someone did/said something mean to me" without even any pretence of trying to fix the (supposed) problem oneself before making it everybody else's problem. I do think the existence of the coop page actively encourages this attitude of talking (or complaining) about people rather than to them. If it wasn't there, editors with grievances would probably put a bit more effort into trying to sort stuff out themselves. Complaining to other editors would obviously still be an option, but they wouldn't be leaping straight to that option as often as they do now. Wèàšèìòìď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we close this? FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Presumably. Doesn't look like a consensus for deletion is gonna appear anytime soon. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipédia (português) | Result: Delete[edit]

Wikipédia (português) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Appears upon translation, to be a hit piece of an ex wikipedia editor. Not helpful to mission as a result. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Not missional at all and doesn't even make an entertaining article. --Castaigne (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Even if the content was relevant to RW's mission, 4 quotes do not an article make. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The article author is creating a series of pages with no content, just writing his point of view. --179.208.208.165 (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The idea of one editor writing articles in a language that the vast majority of other users cannot read or write is extremely problematic and goes against the ethos of collaboration at the heart of the project. I would like to see every last one of his articles deleted if a vibrant cohort of Portuguese readers and writers does not start contributing in the very near term. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
^ From what AH said. While it's nice to see RW branch out, almost every interaction ive seen between us and them is that "nobody can verify what you say and what we can verify is bad"--Miekal 03:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, well those interactions tend to be because I'm translating pages looking for problematic content. That's going to create a negative front. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 04:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't claim that the Portuguese Wikipedia supports pseudoscience or anything dodgy. Is just some quotes which say that it isn't very good. Those quotes are being taken out of context if they're just from people moaning about their articles being deleted. I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I'm not happy that most of the Portuguese "articles" are just a few sentences, a YouTube video and some links to other wikis. And to my fellow sysops, I'd like to say this. The next time that somebody comes along and creates loads of articles in another language, don't just assume that editor is translating existing articles from English, tell him or her to "keep up the good work on those translations" and give that person admin rights within a matter of weeks. Take a look at what that editor is writing. It might be time to discuss our language policy at the bar. Spud (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
A Wikipédia em português possui problemas diferentes da Wikipédia em inglês. Por exemplo, existe um conflito entre usuários brasileiros e usuários portugueses. A Wikipédia em português é tolerante com charlatões por motivos culturais. Como a população dos dois países (Brasil e Portugal) é católica, com muitos espíritas e evangélicos no Brasil, muitos verbetes fazem propaganda da parapsicologia, entre outras besteiras. Como disse, o verbete precisa de melhoria e ampliação. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

A Wikipédia em português possui problemas graves. O verbete é uma crítica. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but "serious problems" isn't rationalwiki's mission. For one, I'm still not sure the nature of those problems after reading your article, other than the kinds of things people have always said about wikipedias of all languages in quotes. Maybe you could help me understand how those problemas graves relate to pseudoscience, crankery, or authoritarianism? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, authoritarianism problems, but pseudoscience and crankery too. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
If the Portuguese Wikipédia has articles supportive of real-world authoritarian regimes and doctrines, that could be a missional take for the article, but if you're just complaining that the admins are too authoritive, I'm afraid you won't have much of a case. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Concordo que o verbete precisa de melhoria, de ampliação e que não atende a missão do RationalWiki de combater ideias absurdas e a negação da ciência. Só para citar um exemplo, existem administradores que fazem uso político da Wikipédia em português. Quanto a negação da ciência, a Wikipédia em português é tolerante com muitas religiões e seitas. Na verdade, uma característica da cultura brasileira. No Brasil tudo é permitido e tolerado. Existem muitos exemplos de verbetes absurdos e mentirosos na Wikipédia. Estou respondendo para esclarecer que a Wikipédia em português não é confiável. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Por enquanto eu vou fundir com o verbete Wiki (português), mas eu penso em criar outro alinhado com a missão do RationalWiki. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Needs improvement, expansion & preferably input from other editors, but seems to fall within stuff we cover. Wëäŝëïöïď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
How? Really, how? It looks like exactly the sort of things people always say about the English wikipedia, but just 2 quotes, and no hint of relevance. I don't know what you're seeing that I'm not. Please help. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(Follow up) I tried digging in as much as I could into the 2 citations, and they really don't distinguish themselves from the English Language "WHY DID YOU DELETE MY PAGE ABOUT MY WEBSITE?" complaints that you see everywhere. I could easily believe a smaller wikipedia has an admin cabal mercilessly pushing an agenda, because the English wikimedia staff is hands off about other language pedias(let the local culture decide what suits them etc.), but that's not the case being made. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I am deleting the article in 24 hours unless the vote swings considerably. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

O.K. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Observação: Eu vou planejar a criação de um verbete totalmente novo e que respeite a missão do RationalWiki. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You may not get the chance, if this ever pans out somewhere.--Miekal 04:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Rome Viharo | Result: Kept, by 10 votes to 1[edit]

Rome Viharo – (View AfD)

Subject thinks article is libelous; claims lack of notability; insists it should be deleted but won't start this himself. PacWalker 01:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

~~Not worth having an article on a forum warrior with a blog - may as well create articles about that guy in year 7 who bullied me. Tielec01 (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)~~ Retracted my vote - it seems that Rome's star has ascended since I last looked into this, Castaigne is right I should have google searched him again before voting. My bad. Tielec01 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete - What problem does it solve having an article written about me on Rational Wiki? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Somebody not using their account shouldn't be able to vote in these discussions- period. ^{— Unsigned, by: MadmanJohnson / talk / contribs}
Please do not strike through my comments - I was directly invited to participate here. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
In fairness, you are an unregistered editor who showed up solely to take part in one AfD and associated snippiness. I wouldn't strike it myself, but he's not exactly miles off the reservation here. PacWalker 06:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the "solution" offered by our articles is the provision of information relevant to our mission, ~~but whether or not your case is notable enough to merit such a "solution" is an interesting question.~~ PacWalker 03:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

~~Are they really a nobody whose life we're affecting? Maybe. That possibility makes my skin crawl. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)~~
That's a huge bunch of nope. A quick Google shows that the subject in question is not a nobody and is all over the internet and media landscape. --Castaigne (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Yeah, okay. Having an IMDB listing is more than enough to undermine my concern about being a nobody. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If I am 'all over the media landscape' as you put it, can you please check the evidence in that landscape and see if it matches the voice of this article? If I am all over the place, I can assure you it has nothing to do with parapsychology or many of the topics you all love to hate on. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Aside from a couple highly interesting film credits that is... Either way, complaining about SPOV? Too bad. This isn't nice promowiki. PacWalker 05:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe you're saying we should cover (possibly instead) the main body of your work (as you define it, of course)? Again, we aren't that other wiki: we have a pretty specific mission and focus. PacWalker 05:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Some marginal guy on the internet said something silly. Nobody got hurt as a result. Said guy will go the fuck away and stop bothering us if we take the article down. So take it down. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Now I'm thinking I want it deleted again. This is a tough call. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that this would set a very bad example and risk encouraging every living crank mentioned on RW to try and "complain their RW entries away". That's why the constant whining actually moves me closer to a keep vote. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Go back and read my comment properly. Let your eyes linger on the phrase "nobody got hurt as a result." Anti-vaxxers hurt people. People who want children to learn mythology instead of science hurt people. People who sell apricot pits in lieu of chemotherapy hurt people. People who want to start a theocracy hurt people. I do not think any of those people should be allowed to complain their articles away, as those articles contribute, in a small way to the public good. Other articles we have, maybe this one, may be more akin to the culture of public shaming that I am starting to think about more and more after reading Jon Ronson's new book. I stand by my vote. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Who "gets hurt" by our other cranks, such as, say (other) electric universe numptys? Should we start removing their entries too? What about Time Cube? And how do we know that no one "got hurt" by trusting Viharo's BS over actual science? I still think this kind of "no harm, no foul"-argument is weak and opens a royal road to start removing all kinds of woo-related stuff from RW as long as it isn't "obviously harmful" (beyond giving people a nonsensical view of the world, of course). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
EC. I respect your argument. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's say this article is "public shaming". Would it be possible to remove the public shaming and keep the article? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I have absolutely nothing to do with EU people - they asked me to present my website, and I did. I haven't promoted anyone's ideas. I don't think it's fair to cite editorial arguments on Wikipedia, which were done anonymously, as 'promoting' pseudoscience. Wikipedia has it's own rules regarding what determines 'pseudoscience' - that's what I was arguing for, Wikipedia's own rules. This is a witch hunt. Thank you aginghippie, yes this article is a result of public shaming, essentially for at best what were anonymous discussions where privacy was also expected. Disagree with me, fine - shame me when you disagree with me? disgusting and irresponsible 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"I haven't promoted anyone's ideas"...wrong [5], wrong [6]. Leuders (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Not wrong. The link you share to TED are comments on a BLOG about Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk getting taken down from TED and I was defending his right to to give it, I was not promoting his ideas nor was I saying that Morphic Resonance is true. There were hundreds of comments left on that blog. Commenting on blogs is not promotion, it's commenting. Seriously - you're shaming people for comments on blogs now? Secondly, ISHAR is not me promoting someone else's idea, ISHAR was *my idea* for a collaborative library that Deepak Chopra funded. It's an academic library of published peer reviewed literature. It's educational, not promotional and was meant to cover hundreds if not thousands of topics. You're believing your own weasel words and it's intellectually dishonest. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh sure, publicly rebutting the opinions of TEDs scientific advisors and quoting Sheldrake somehow isn't promoting Sheldrake's ideas. A long term effort to attempt to prevent Sheldrake's theories from being called pseudoscience on Wikipedia isn't promoting Sheldrake's ideas. Giving interviews to Huffington Post saying you created ISHAR in response to "misleading information on the internet, especially information promoted by skeptic activist organizations" and positioning a collection of fringe pseudoscience papers that support Chopra's batshit ideas as an "academic library of peer reviewed literature" isn't promoting Chopra's ideas. Really? No wonder folks like Craig Weiler, Alex Tsakiris, and the Electric Universe people have rolled out the red carpet for you. Leuders (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Correct on the first question. Almost correct on the second question - the argument on Wikipedia was an editorial one regarding Wikipedia's conflicting policies over a BLP. It wasnt a scientific or philosophical discussion about Rupert's ideas and I was only there for 6 weeks. Correct on the third question, I designed architecture because it is very very true that skeptic activists publish misleading information on the internet. But the architecture is not 'anti skeptic'. Look, see for yourself. I know that from direct experience, that's why I got the gig. ISHAR was an academic library. It only publishes an archive of peer reviewed literature, none of it is Deepak's work and the majority of it is downloaded from PubMed and JSTOR. So you believe I should be publicly shamed because Alex, Deepak and Craig publicly endorse, fund, or report on my work? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I believe you should have a RationalWiki article to document (among other things) your highly public work as cheerleader of the "we're victims of evil skeptics" fringe science crowd. Whether you are shamed by it or not is up to you. Leuders (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I took a cruise through ISHAR and found it exclusively contained papers on ‪Biological‬ and ‪Ayurvedic medicine‬: you know, bloodletting, cow shit, arsenic, lead, and mercury presented as effective remedies for illness. So I take it part of your job was to publicly spin this stuff as "peer reviewed academic research" to make it sound more legitimate. Shameless. Leuders (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a version of the article about me 'without' the public shaming that Laird submitted last year for anyone to draw from. You can disagree with me without shaming me and effecting my personal and private life. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I also just re-edited the article with context, then reverted - so you can see the version I edited here. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Article is informative, and on-mission; no material is libelous, although "bullshit master" might be a little bit too positive. His actions are notable, and as PacWalker has noted; not required for this projectQwed117 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
On mission. Not libelous. I believe the subject to be trolling hard. --Castaigne (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
~~Article is on-mission and not libelous; notability is (a) greater than subject alleges and (b) not required here. PacWalker 01:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)~~ We document "the full range of crank ideas," and "memetic and language technology that resolves all conflict and war" is such an idea. PacWalker 04:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
So too is the notion that "ideas, memes, media and words replicate. Exponentially." See Bekenstein bound at the other wiki. PacWalker
Seriously? One sentence found on a website that no longer exists, where I incorrectly added 'exponentially' is reason to justify a public shaming? That ideas 'replicate' themselves is something Dawkins writes about in his book, and where I draw my source. That I misappropriate the word 'exponential' and no longer publish that seems like you're doing everything you can to cherry pick evidence to fit your position, not very intellectually honest. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Very much on mission and not libelous. Public activism in support of Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopras pseudoscientific woo (he was in charge of Chopra's Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository for Chrissakes) is well documented, as is his tireless promotion of his bizarre OS-12-Aiki-Wiki Thing he says will end all conflict and war. Subject's periodic trolling and socking on RW are an annoyance, but that's not a good enough reason to delete. Leuders (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I find this 'guilt by association' disturbing. My work with ISHAR had NOTHING to do with me promoting ideas, I designed architecture for a collaborative library, which is independent of any content that it contains. See for yourself. Any associations I have with any individual or organization in those communities is about my work with Wikipedia. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
His connection with ISHAR and promotion of the idea that there is some kind of skeptic conspiracy to ruin alternative medicine on the internet [7] are reason enough to keep the article. On a side note, I'd advise against engaging with him. He's a notorious internet troll, with a long history of intentionally bullshitting, and is more than happy to talk in circles as you pull your hair out. Marlow (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not a 'notorious internet troll', yet this term is so loosely thrown around, it's just assumed it's true.104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlike John Duffield (the recent precedent for claimed libel), this person appears to have more than mere internet-forum posting and more non-forum citations for us to add. This person is involved with three areas that intersect with RW:MISSION: his GSoW and internet skeptics conspiracy theory, his association with Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra's pseudoscience, and his largely unsupported claims about OS 1 2 3 (et. al.) which may fall into futurist woo or pseudoscience. Ultimately, the subject is missional and notable, and the article does not appear to have libel. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty disingenuous to say that an evidenced based report detailing abuses happening on Wikipedia with specific editors who themselves CLAIM they are skeptics is a conspiracy theory. My work with Wikipedia is about editorial abuses. My work with Deepak Chopra was regarding Wikipedia. That skeptics have been targeted in my report has nothing to do with their belief systems, it has to do with their behaviors - and I've made that very clear on the site. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
What evidence bases your assertion that skeptics on Wikipedia are conspiring to attack a person? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hahahaha no. --Madman (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
Nice try, but no. It's informative, on-mission and not libelous. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{THAT IS STILL LEGAL TENDER. I AM SANDWICH LAWYER.} 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
RE: ISHAR, Deepak Chopra: I also see plenty of editors here using my association with Deepak Chopra and ISHAR as evidence that I deserve to be shamed on Rational Wiki. I've disclosed my history with Deepak Chopra transparently. I've developed a collaborative digital library which ANY organization could use. Even Rational Wiki could use the aiki atheneum. I'm a problem solver. I like solving online problems. I'm obviously very passionate about online collective editing. Perhaps I was naive as to the pushback I would receive, but hey, I live in Southern California - we tend not to be so reactive to people when they do yoga and meditate. I've created media plans for Jennifer Aniston, that doesn't mean I endorse her films personally. I've developed media plans for Brazil, that does not mean I endorse their politics. Additionally, I've developed technology for brands and publishers to use to promote or advertise content. That doesn't mean I endorse their content, it means i create a manner of facilitating it. If I endorse something, I blog about it. Deepak Chopra is a very famous and well connected person. He also hired me to apply my work. I worked with him because he contacted me and paid me. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should be a bit more careful in choosing your clients... Chopra may be "a very famous and well connected person", but so are numerous other woo meisters and helping them either spread their woo or whitewash their online presence to make them look better is not going to gain you any points, whether you do it for money or pro bono. Doing purely for the dough just makes you look unprincipled and mercenary (in my eyes, at least). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't 'do it for the doe' like you put, you make it sound like I am selling out my principles, not yours. I LOVE designing collaborative architecture and I was thrilled to have the work. How dare you think you have the right to frame me, my world view, my beliefs because of a client that I had at one time? I don't have to apologize to anyone for having Deepak Chopra as a paying client - it's you who should be ashamed for publicly shaming people who had a professional engagement with someone you disagree with. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

And removing the completely unnecessary layer of personal judgement, that really shouldn't be part of this discussion, our mission is to contest those materials regardless of why they are published. So if you put out a book or movie making psuedoscientific claims, our mission is to alert people to that fact. We can't see in the heads of those who do it, and frankly it doesn't matter, much like motivation for a crime doesn't excuse it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Good point, otherwise various other woo, denialist, or conspiracy projects could just as well be excused as being "only mercenary" which is clearly bunk. Spreading woo for the moneyz, rather than from sincere belief doesn't give you the proverbial "get out of jail free"-card. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
By that logic, Wikipedia is spreading 'woo' as well because they have articles on alternative medicine and new age topics? Google is promoting woo because DeepakChopra.com shows up in search? While I can't say I endorse Deepak Chopra, do I have to be resentful of him and his ideas like you are and heed your warning that if I don't you have a right to shame me for it? I'm sorry to say, that sounds pretty draconian. Why, it even sounds like a conspiracy theory. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Anybody who winges like this gets a vote from the goat to keep. If you need another reason then meh, whatever, looks good enough to keep.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It's clear the reasons for keeping the article on Rational Wiki are based about personal evaluations and opinions about my professional life - which none of you could have a hope to claim you know about. I've updated my essay to reflect the current status of this discussion. I can't say I am disappointed, I am honestly not surprised .104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll pitch my vote on the scales too. Considering that Leuders has rummaged around ISHAR and found plenty of pseudomedical stuff á la Ayurvedic "medicine" and Viharo proudly acknowledges his role in creating and promoting ISHAR, it would appear that he can't even pass AgingHippie's "no harm, no foul"-criterion. Sure, Viharo may not have come up with the woo himself, but being the PR guy for woo peddlers who promote pseudomedicine is enough to merit an article here, just like RW has articles and categories for shysters, enablers, experts for hire, and propagandists such as Edward Bernays, Frank Luntz or Karl Rove (though sadly not, yet, on Saint Ronnie's chief of propaganda, Lee Atwater).ScepticWombat (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

These funny things are, like, not votes for or against deletion. Rather, they're, like, comments, dude.

I'm starting to think he's not so well-known in more general circles as I had once thought. Still don't know whether this article merits deletion, ~~but I'm taking myself off the vote counts for now.~~ PacWalker 02:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Relevant to Rational Wiki, there is no reason I should be on anyone's radar here unless you were a Wikipedia editor. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I will say that that isn't strictly true: I had heard of you before joining here, and Wikipedia had nothing to do with it. PacWalker 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Then you only could have heard of me because of what exactly??? A ridiculous discussion I had on JREF 8 years ago? an essay I wrote on 'internet dialectics' 10 years ago?? Seriously where or why would you ever hear about me? What 'pseudo scientific' claims do I make? what products do I sell? What health claims do I publish? Have I written a book about ghosts? Surely you dont follow me on twitter or tumblr, and if you did, what content do I post that needs to be red flagged?? You don't know me, and there is no reason you should know me unless your involved with media, adtech, Wikipedia, or follow me on social media. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I heard of you by word of mouth in relation to what was then called AL 0 1 2. PacWalker 04:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Then you're mistaken about the time frame. AL 012 was the name for aiki wiki only after WWHP was published and I quickly changed it. If you mean OS 012, then you could have only have heard about it on JREF or perhaps two or three discussion forums in 2003 - 2007, or AOL message boards. Seriously - this is what you want to warn the world about? If you want to criticize aiki wiki - why not either wait until it comes out, or criticize what's on aiki.wiki right now? Perhaps raise an 'intellectual' issue you have the with scope of the project? If you're intention is to criticize OS 012/Bubblefish, it's like criticizing Sasha Baron Cohen for fraud and impersonation, citing direct video as evidence. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

As I've said, I heard of it by word of mouth; I don't know where my friend'd heard of you from, but claiming that I could only know of you if I visited forums x, y, and Bob is just a plain lie. PacWalker 04:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the ONLY way you could have heard of me was from those forums, either you were there or your friend was. There is no other source of OS 012 elsewhere on the web. It was isolated to a few forums, and to this day can't believe people either still remember it or even care two shits about it. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Not true, Viharo. I had heard of it myself, here in the programming world - and I've never been a member of or even glanced at JREF. Secondly, you forget something: once you put it on the internet - and you did - the internet remembers it forver. --Castaigne (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit in two minds about this one. The subject seems to be just another internet troll, but that in itself is not enough to merit an article here. But neither do I think RW should just knuckle under whenever a crank decides that RW is being "sooooo, like unfair, really, it's just terrible, I tell you". Otherwise we might take down every page. Precedent seems to be a bit wobbly, e.g. the edit history of Jarah White and Talk:John Duffield. Currently, I'm leaning towards keep, but not enough to weigh in with a vote yet. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
One thing that I do think argues for a keep is the level of crank magnetism documented by the article (really, Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra and electric universe woo and a conspiracy of teh evilz Wiki-skeptucs?) ScepticWombat (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Why... crackers... wut? PacWalker 07:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Just because... And I happen to like TUC (crackers or trade unionists, take your pick). It's morning and I've had neither coffee nor breakfast yet - perhaps that's what brought the association - shit, I don't know, I'm not a shrink. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Castaigne: You've heard of OS 012 in the programming world? Wow. Well it was an underground meme before there were internet memes, so I guess that's kinda cool in a way. But so what does that prove? @Skeptic Wombat: I freely volunteered to help Rupert Sheldrake on Wikipedia because researching collaborative communities is part of my work and I had the opportunity to work in a wiki war. I would have done that in almost any subject matter. Deepak Chopra however *hired* me to help him with his Wikipedia war and my role to ISHAR was architecting their Wikipedia solution and digital library. I've had allot of groups reach out to me because of my work with WWHP. I council them on online harassment on platforms. It has nothing to do with their belief systems or yours. The fact that I would somehow be redflagged as someone who has worked with Rupert or Deepak is part of the problematic psychology that I believe corrupts this forum, it's 'guilt by association' mob psychology here - NOT evidenced based facts like the site claims. @everyone here: you throw the word 'troll' around when someone presents you with a challenging position, and in this case, stands up to online harassment. I'm sorry - that's not trolling.

104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Rome" (obviously not your real name), your posting is filled with gross misspellings, "I don't get it" type of statements, and a general link that shows nothing. I've managed to read your rants and found a childish insistence on last wordism, so it's obvious to me you're not here to think and learn. You also refuse to accept that Obama refuses to salute the flag and that including the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance reduces autism. Nobody seriously doubts that those who want bilingual education can get it from public school, and unfortunately suffer because of it. I can tell you, though, that you'd be happier, more productive, and more insightful if you accepted the possibility of the truth of long-held views that you currently reject out of hand. --aschlafly 11:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

lol - 104.175.42.84 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Solution??[edit]

What does this process hope to resolve? Their are arguments for 'Keep'. Those arguments are not arguments, they are the equivalence of comments on a forum. This is not a process of online deliberation. There is nothing in this process that determines if the 'Keep' votes are even honest about their views or can support those views consistently inside of critical questioning. Stop pretending this is any sort of reasonable process of debate and conclusion. It's obvious this article was written by those with a personal grudge against. Are the keep votes claiming that Rational Wiki just spontaneously created an article about forum posts I made 10 years because of their relevancy in 2014 instead of related directly to Wikipedia, which the evidence clearly shows in the evidence of the diffs on both forums happened at the exact same time??. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're complaining about the fact that we vote on deletions, you are in the wrong damn place. While you are welcome to debate the issue as you will, declaring someone's vote illogical (how references to our standards and mission in a debate on whether to have an article on you here is illogical is beyond me) does not render it invalid. PacWalker 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Your argument under delete isn't an argument either. It's a question, but we still count your vote, yes? 131.204.254.105 (talk)

I never said it was illogical, I'm suggesting it's not rational. Im not seeing anyone here be transparent about how they came to their conclusions and what compelling evidence they have for their vote. If everyone votes to keep the article, that does not take away the harassing nature of it's origin or make any conclusions about any facts I raise. I'm raising ethical issues around human dignity and the responsibility of an influential online publisher to address them. Some Rational Wiki poster just deciding I'm a troll 'just cuz' and using that to empower and publish an article because it's just what they feel like is not a rational deliberation and having a vote does not spontaneously make it such. Online rational consensus building is an area of very specific expertise I have. By claiming to be a rational wiki that seeks to publish evidence based factual content, you've set the high standard for yourself. Don't be upset when someone calls you out on it. Counting votes is not peer review, evidenced based review or any evidence at all in any way shape or form that the winner of the vote is rational. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Here is some evidence in regards to what we aim to do here. Our standards, and legal standards, are what standards we judge our articles on, not your twisted ethical sense that claims that describing your past activities critically is some affront to human dignity. PacWalker 03:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I get what your trying to do here. Was it really important that Rational Wiki fulfill it's mission by telling the world you think I had some crazy ideas I talked about 10 years ago anonymously on some forum no one gives a shit about? Again, what pseudo scientific claims do I make? What crank ideas do you think I have? That I've been promoting the idea of a collaborative online platform for consensus building? Can you explain to me what is so cranky about that idea? That I published a case study of editorial abuses happening on Wikipedia? Because those are the only claims I make publicly and stake my reputation on. Remove the 'troll' claims people pass around about me, which there is also no evidence of, just a few forum comments - and there is nothing to write about. This article reads like a personal vendetta because that is what it is. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT ROME VIHARO except for the editors on Wikipedia and JREF forum. In the meantime, this article is effecting a real live flesh and blood person you know nothing about. Yes I met with investors, especially plenty this year. I also am talking to foundations about grants for aiki.wiki. The only problem this article solves is harassing and embarrassing me - that's it. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It presumably also presents people who consider believing some of your nonsensical claims (look! my language/"consensus" building framework will end wars! All of them!!1!!1one!) a skeptical view of those claims, which is what we aim to do. If analyzing the claims you've made previously harms you, that is because you promote nonsense. PacWalker 04:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

THEN REVIEW MY published claims and do not confuse a creative performance on a discussion forum with the later! As aiki wiki is not yet released, and wont be for at least a year, there isn't much you can truthfully say about what the platform does, but you can draw upon claims I make on the site http://aiki.wiki, or on the site I talk about Google Consciousness talking about social media evolving to replace government as we know it today. Do that and our problem is solved. Remove 'known internet troll' and 'promoter of pseudo science rupert sheldrake' those are both false and misleading- publish my video narration on what aiki wiki is aiming to do, and attack that.

PLEASE! I would so much rather you appreciate attacking me for things I am seriously claiming rather than misinterpret creative experiments on discussion forums and use that to frame what I do. I've spent years building aiki wiki, costing me considerable amounts of my own time and money. If you want to brow beat me on that project, do it. WITH EVIDENCE. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You've suggested some lovely additions, and I'll see what can be done about it, but we're not going to stop criticizing your past work because you suddenly declared it "creative." PacWalker 05:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding criticizing - if you're going to criticize me, at least criticize my actual claims and the context of those claims. Don't say I'm a known internet troll because I am not a known internet troll - and if you use tactics like that to contextualize work I am doing at a professional level, it's unethical and intellectually dishonest to your own principles. Dont accuse me of spreading conspiracy theories about skeptics, it's also intellectually dishonest and twisting context deceptively. If you just want to embarass me and write a rant about me and what you think my ideas are, then do so on a blog. If rational wiki is what it claims - then it will look at what facts it has, what reasoned arguments it has to keep them, and present accordingly. If you and I disagree about the possibilities of online consensus building and the best way to do it, then i don't need to be a troll or promoter of pseudoscience for you and I to disagree. be respectful and honest, that is all I ask. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I am rarely respectful and occasionally honest. I further have no interest in your conceptions of ethics, but I will do what I can to ensure that your article deals also in your recent claims and their context and not merely their older underpinnings. PacWalker 06:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

PROTEST, calling bullshit[edit]

Are you really taking a creative and theatrical work that is NO LONGER PUBLISHED ONLINE and hasn't been for about 10 years as the excuse to keep an article WARNING THE WORLD about something that does no longer even exists on the web? Seriously - you're worried people are scrolling through internet archive to find out about 'Bubblefish, flame warrior' posts and articles? Stop being intellectually dishonest, you're cherry picking any excuse you can find to justify to yourself this is not harassment. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you consider the fact that you based AikiWiki on these principles presently irrelevant? (yes, I have seen your ugly six-petaled "flower") PacWalker 04:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's relevant to this discussion if you're going to attack those principles with reasoned argument. I think it's relevant if you want to claim that the rules of gamification for aiki wiki are making claims that are crankish or based on something pseudoscientific. Are they? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

[obvious response omitted] PacWalker 10:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I asked you a direct question Pacwalker. You're avoiding the answer. You're avoiding the answer because you know I will request transparency in your calculations, and we both know it's lacking. I called bullshit, and you're not making a good case for yourself or your community. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither of us knows that; the transparency requested is pretty damn evident, in fact. As to "a good case" ...maybe (I doubt it) not to your strange mind, but nobody else here seems put out by all these flaws you allege with the reasoning for keeping your article. I'm not saying you're delusional; just that everyone but you must be. PacWalker 07:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Since I am the subject of this article, I think it's fair for me to ask what evidence do you have, what reasoning do you have, what methods have you used to arrive at your conclusions. You're not giving me a straight answer - noted.104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten too heated, and it's not just the BoN's fault[edit]

Please try to restrain your hostility, and at least appreciate the feelings of the article subject. That doesn't have to sway your vote, but do incorporate it into how you treat them. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

^. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Being accused of being unable to count to two (which is not past four, so I'm safe) may have snipped about seven metres off my fuse. PacWalker 16:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair point, but still, I'm asking nicely. ikanreed ~~^{You probably didn't deserve that}~~ 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Is your sig subtly mocking me... because if so that is clever. And I shall try to tone the whatever down. PacWalker 16:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, my sig is just assuming that I have my usual overly harsh tone I regret using 5 minutes later. ikanreed ~~^{You probably didn't deserve that}~~ 18:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I meant the strikethrough... Is that random? PacWalker 06:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought it looked cool as if it were underlined. I didn't think of it looking like actual strike to other browsers. I'll fix it. ikanreed ~~^{You probably didn't deserve that}~~ 14:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ohh. All right. Well dang, I thought you were just being rather cleverly sarcastic with the signature. PacWalker 06:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we close this?[edit]

It's 6 to 2. Do we need more consensus? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This AfD has not even been up for 24 hours yet. Not everybody's life revolves around RW, and some substantial contributors may only check in occasionally. Can it stay up a week before dumping it to the archive? Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure! αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Besides, it's not like we can't move on with the rest of everything (Mr. Viharo's article included) while this is up. PacWalker 01:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Tru. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 01:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The ethical reason for deletion[edit]

I've been skeptical about participating in this process because I've already have been through it once or twice before and do not believe this process actually resolves anything and believe it's a sham. But hey, I'm also upset, so maybe I'm wrong? Maybe someone here can prove me wrong. If I'm proven wrong, I'll even state it in my essay here and retract assertions I've made about this community.

The article here on Rational Wiki was written at the exact time I was editing with the intention to be anonymous Rupert Sheldrake's wikipedia article. I was mentioned as one of a number of other editors on Ruperts article here back in September/October of 2013, what linked us all together was that we believed Rupert Sheldrake should have the title of biologist in his lead sentence. I was editing biographical facts and context for the article. The editors on Wikipedia, many of them whom describe themselves as skeptics, frequent the skepticism noticeboards, and even use this site did not want me there. One member recognized me from a discussion 8 years ago on JREF, and began a campaign to have been sanctioned on Wikipedia as a troll. After 5 attempts, and only using the actual link to the JREF forum and a website from 2004 on internet archive, were successful in banning me from Wikipedia. Simultaneously this page was created about me here. I was framed as a woo, pseudoscience, sheldrake parapsychology supporter who was trolling. Even now, by coming here, using the process rational wiki itself invites me to use, a few users are accusing me of trolling Rational Wiki. I don't believe challenging Rational Wiki's principles as a publisher is trolling.

This article was written as a form of harassment. It's clear from a number of commenters here that they do not like me. It's personal. One user even retracted his 'delete' because he somehow believes my 'star power' is rising. What I am doing to warn the world about? This article infers I am a bullshit artist who promotes psuedoscience and trolls the internet. That's not who I am. If anyone here were to know me, they would also know my integrity is something very important to me.

I believe a vote to 'keep' this article proves my point - and a vote to 'delete' this article proves me wrong. From the perspective of ethical publishing - this article should be deleted because a;) it does not accurately offer a true narrative of events, ideas, or personas in the article, b:) It's used to work out personal grudges, dislikes and is comprised of personal commentary c;) it's not ethical to harass people with opinions on a website that credits evidenced based facts.104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Voting to keep your essay proves that it should be deleted?

PacWalker 04:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe votes to keep this essay prove this community does not uphold it's own principles and abuses this platform to harass and demean other people. I believe a vote to delete this article proves that I am mistaken about this community and it's principles.104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

How does Rational Wiki determine a 'crank' idea?[edit]

One of our principles is to write about crank ideas and cranks. See RationalWiki:Mission. A vote to delete your article is a deviation from that principle, not adherence to it. PacWalker 04:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up. How does this platform identify 'crank' ideas? Can you define what a crank idea is with brevity, and then explain specifically which ideas of mine are 'crank' ideas? Thanks in advance. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean it seems to me that 'crank' can be used like a pejorative, meaning it could be used to demean someone. However, since Rational Wiki claims to be an evidenced based website, I'm sure you have a way of measuring, determining the demarkation line of what defines them? Do you have a link to this on Rational Wiki? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

RW:Not a dictionary might be a redlink, but we still aren't a dictionary. PacWalker 04:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

We do have a )dys(lexicon however, though it is poorly maintained and filled with things that never get said anymore. --Miekal 04:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It actually has surprisingly many entries that are applicable to this mess... PacWalker 04:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'm not asking for a definition of 'crank' is as a word - that's just a proscription for a word, I am asking you if Rational Wiki has a process to identify cranks ideas. For example, a pseudoscientific idea has clear demarkations that define it, one of them being the lack of falsifiability. While pseudo science could be used as a pejorative, it has clear boundaries that can be set to logic and argumentation. I'm not seeing anything like that here on Rational WIki, so it looks like anyone could in principle label any idea they didn't like, for whatever reason, as a crank idea. That's fine if this is an opinion based website, but it does seem to counter the fact that it's also an evidence based website.104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The general consensus on "Pseudoscience" and "crank" here is "Something that runs counter to currently established scientific fact, often with little testable proof" and "Person who promotes said ideas"--Miekal 05:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(wording is a bit different but...) "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! PacWalker 05:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

So 'crank' and 'pseudoscience' are interchangeable words? Do they share the same demarcation? 'Pseudoscience' is not a subjective term, yet 'crank' seems like a term anyone can just throw around here, like troll, and not have to take any responsibility for it's truth value, yet it still seems to hold a high bar as if it's somehow based on scientific consensus. Isn't that misleading readers online? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is not an ambiguous term, and you have quite unambiguously promoted pseudoscientific theories and originated some of your own. As such, you qualify as what we call a crank. PacWalker TL;DR: No.

Exactly, pseudeoscience is not an ambiguous term - yet your interchanging it with crank,which means anything you want. What 'pseudoscientific' theory have I originated? What 'pseudoscientific' ideas of others have I been promoting? I want EVIDENCE, sir - not your vague opinions. I should expect evidence on an evidence based website. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Originated:OS 012 and its spawn. See my keep vote for a pair of the conflicts with fact. Promoted: Chopra shit, Sheldrake's conspiracy theories, etc. etc. woof woof. PacWalker 03:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not performing very well in the discussion, or in the presentation of your evidence. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a pre-Nürnberg war crimes trial; superior !orders are not a defense here. PacWalker 06:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm starting to get a clearer picture of the community culture here. Let me guess, you're like 17 years old? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong and irrelevant. Good job. New addition to OS 012: -1, for your words. PacWalker 06:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It was a snark, yes - and irrelevant, however even you contextualizing this very discussion and my argument/defense as the 'superior orders' argument informs me how 'rational' this process of 'evidenced based and reasoned discussion' works on Rational Wiki. fyi that would just be assigned a 2/snark, even by myself. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I edited the page and reverted. Here is the context of what you're writing about as reference[edit]

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Rome_Viharo&oldid=1452503 104.175.42.84 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting to adding off-mission self-promotional material. Why I don't block you is beyond me. PacWalker 02:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Now you're really not following this argument. This entire article about me is off mission - it's just a public shaming and harassment. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The RW community, not you will interpret RW'a mission. PacWalker 06:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You're starting to sound like a bizarre internet cult, seriously. I take RW's mission at face value. I also evaluate the behaviors here, and the reactions to requests for evidenced based reasoned argumentation. You, and each and everyone of you here also interpret's RW mission. As individuals, not as a community.

Today's discussions and disclosures by this community I believe clearly show a pattern of online harassment and continual lack of responsibility and integrity. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Or that someone has a raging persecution complex...

Note that no one so far has bought your hand wringing and excuses. The only ones beside yourself to have voted for a delete (Tielec, who has withdrawn that vote, and AgingHippie) did so because they thought you were too small fry for RW (and later AH suggested that it would at least shut up your whining), not because they found any merit in your constant claims of harassment or libel. Let me be blunt: You don't have a right not to be offended. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

That the Rational Wiki community is not phased is surely not a surprise. I didn't come here to get a vote on deleting my article, I already went through that process last year, it was a sham - and other members of this community noted the same. Additionally, Aging hippy said he didn't feel it was right to 'publicly shame someone for a comment left on a discussion forum. If you all are fine with this behavior - it's you're community do what you want. I do have the right however to criticize this and confront each and every one of you. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

About Rome Viharo (by Rome Viharo)[edit]

Rome Viharo is a social media strategist, CEO of an ad technology company, former recording artist, viral marketer, digital filmmaker, and blogger. He was called an Internet troll a few times in 2007 on a discussion forums. He also left comments on the TED blog known protesting TED for removing the a talk given by Rupert Sheldrake and edited biographical information on his Wikipedia page. Viharo is a member of the TED community having given a TEDx talk in 2011 called 'Google Consciousness'.

His website claims to tell his version of events regarding editing Wikipedia and references skeptic editors on Wikipedia skeptic noticeboards. In addition to criticizing Wikipedia's policy for site abuse, he also claims to design collaborative platforms and consults individuals with Wikipedia problems. One of his clients was Deepak Chopra. ISHAR was designed based on Viharo's principles of collaborative curation.

12 years ago, Viharo claims he was experimenting with a new creative medium on discussion forums called OS 012. To promote OS 012, He developed an online persona called 'Bubblefish: Flame Warrior', which a few people did not like and argued with him about it.

Viharo has a history of creative writing, viral marketing and comedic mediums, using humor and set ups as part of particular brand of creative writing. In 2001, he created the persona 'The Fifi Bastard', a fake music producer from France, to promote his EMI recording of the same name. Years later, he further experimented with 'The Fifi Bastard' in blogs and various forums.

Additionally, he created a fake 'Morgan Freeman' cigarette commercial, and 'Barack Obama in college' with comedian Freddy Lockhart.

Viharo promotes ideas on 'futurism and media' on his blog and promotes the development of his project aiki wiki.

In 2011, he gave a TEDx talk Google Consciousness, which tells the story about the creation of the meme google consciousness, and uses the talk to promote his concepts of social media evolving to replace government. Claiming in the talk to 'not know what he is talking about' when it comes to consciousness, he explored how 'Google search' describes two competing models of consciousness and the possibility that a search algorithm could actually be sentient based on what they are saying, while clarifying this is not what he personally believes.

Request to delete, 2018[edit]

There was already a deletion request, but since then Viharo has created an entire website that now focuses more on RationalWiki (than originally Wikipedia), made YouTube Videos and complains non-stop about his RationalWiki article (e.g. see his Twitter, Quora and other online profiles; he also created a Heartmob and can be found on countless blogs and forums doing the same). He is still doing this and dedicates almost 24/7 of his time complaining about his RationalWiki article. This has been going on for over 4 years, and I think it would be good to just delete his article.

Viharo has decided to dox RationalWiki editors he blames for his article, as well as spread wild allegations and misinformation about them on his website. All of this has real-life consequences, and reports have been filed to block his articles showing up on Google. In his defence, Viharo claims these editors spread misinformation about him on his RationalWiki article. So basically it's an ongoing feud with both sides attacking each other and both accusing each other of lies and trolling, that has spilled on multiple forums, blogs etc, over a silly RationalWiki article. A solution to the mess is to just delete Viharo's article. I'm someone involved (unfortunately) in all this, and would prefer if the article was just deleted. Only a few days ago, Viharo published another article: http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2018/04/rationalwiki-is-gas-lighting-lying-covering-up-platform-wide-harassment/ That entire article is misinformation, filled with lies, but his RationalWiki article he complains is filled with the same and that its caused him stress and psychological issues. It would be great if everyone could move on, end this feud by removing the article.Agent47 (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgive my bluntness but... Why the fuck should we care? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't care because you're anonymous. Some of us though have been doxed and smeared on Viharo's website. I would just like this to end. If this article is removed, there wouldn't be any more online fighting with Viharo and he will leave RationalWiki alone.Agent47 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit, he'll keep at it, that's what predators do when they sense weakness. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep If RV wants to play dirty, we should document that so people can see just what he's like. The alternative is that we end up deleting articles if people are nasty enough to us. Wilder^Bicycle 22:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep What GrammarCommie and Readymade said. Why in the world would RationalWiki back down when faced with such vile behavior? It's obvious that this person is a predator and removing the article because of his behavior is giving him exactly what he wants. If there was any merit to his pseudoscientific nonsense, he would spend time refining his ideas and making his case instead of being a sick little troll. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep: Ben Steigmann is barely relevant, but Viharo is a different matter. In fact, this makes me think deleting the Steigmann talkpage was a bad idea. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

DELETE and if not a delete, then a CORRECT. The article is fraught with inaccuracies, wild claims, out of context false light representations, and slander. I am representing Viharo in this deletion request, and I am here to correct some gross inaccuracies, many of them which are intentionally misleading and deceptive in both the article and in a few of the claims here. Viharo has not "doxed" anyone, but rather used public information available on the internet so as to attempt to halt extreme harassment from that individual, as well as a number of other internet users. Viharo has, however, filed a complaint with the FBI regarding an individual who does and has edited RationalWIki. All Viharo has done in the past four years is blog about each instance of recorded harassment, which is his right to do so and which he does in a responsible manner. If there are inaccuracies on Wikipedia, We Have a Problem, those will be removed as long as a reasonable claim or counter-argument can be made. I also protest the inference that Viharo is a "predator" when all of his actions are defensive and can easily be proved as such. Historically, Viharo has sought recourse through the rationalwiki platform, and just faced harassment and consistent banning or blocking I am not here to make legal threats. Will I be allowed to proceed? Please advise as to where an when, thank you. .Correcttherecord (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@correctherecord you're not being truthful though. I have a family member doxed on your website when he has no public information. A stalker paid $20 to obtain this information via a paywall (the information from this has since been removed, but the information was copied before the deletion). The family member that got doxed has no internet presence whatsoever, no social media, nothing. His personal information was on a single paywall site for a personal address he no longer lives at; I didn't realise this was up and as soon as I did it was deleted. You dox this person on your website, and now Abd Lomax has about a dozen articles on his blog doxing this individual. I could also make an argument I was personally doxed. My real name was only connected to online aliases I have used - by trolls from Encylopedia Dramatica who spent hours going through my internet history (although they made lots of mistakes) and managed to connect an old IP address I used on one account (like a decade back), to my real name. I do find it odd you claim to be against doxing, but are blatantly a doxxer.Agent47 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are claiming there are inaccuracies you need to show what they are, provide evidence, sources etc as Bongolian said. You can do this below. So far you've not provided any proof your article is inaccurate, just said it is. It would be a lot easier to just delete the article and save us all this time. Since that though was denied, you will need to explain what you want changed with evidence there is incorrect information.Agent47 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Dude, your FBI threat was damage control. I first reported you to the police for online harassment (all the defamation and doxing of my family on your website). Less than a week after I did that (and I can confirm this with my emails etc) you said you reported me to FBI.Agent47 (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

UNICE Global Brain Project | Result: Deleted[edit]

UNICE Global Brain Project – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This looks like spam to me. It also looks to me like this could be the tip of the iceberg of a whole lot of spam if it's not nipped in the bud now. Spud (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
While collaboration is laudable (and nice) this article is not consonant with the core of the RW mission. Bud. Nip. Now. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Can I get some on-wiki info about this planned RW functionality? I'm not really sure why it's on-mission, though if it is a proposal, it may go elsewhere. PacWalker 12:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep Forever[edit]

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. The heck it's spam. (I wrote it and my intentions are pure, I promise). UNICE is a non-profit, collaborative project that will add another layer of Reason to RationalWiki. Why not make it a project, or put it in a special category as PacWalker seems to suggest? Let's see what happens. This is the home for something like this. If it works, it will help all of us address a multitude of issues related to just about everything.

I ran for governor of Florida in 2010 as a Democrat. I was told by party honchos that issues don't matter, it was all about the money, and if I didn't have million of dollars to spend they didn't want to pay for a primary because they had already anointed Alex Sink. I quit the party in disgust and ran as a NPA because issues do matter, which is large part of the reason that RationalWiki was founded. (Speaking of founding, read the founding article at www.UNICE.info if you have any doubts.) UNICE is about the issues and a way to discuss them rationally. Michael E. Arth

I AM NOT suggesting putting it in a special category; I am saying to make a proposal for whatever collaboration somewhere other than an essentially self-promotional mainspace article. PacWalker 15:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted[edit]

Spam. Learn to recognize it as such and delete it. No vote necessary. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I was a bit cautious just in case there was any truth behind the vague suggestion that the Rational Media Foundation had already given support to this project. (Deep down, I knew that wasn't the case.) The next time I see such obvious spam, I will boldly delete it without messing about. Spud (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Romney | Result: Deceased[edit]

Romney – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

reeks of 2012 recentism, doesn't really strike me as relevant anymore, the way gay rights continue to be a la santorum ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Unlike santorum, this one apparently didn't really catch on (or maybe it's just that I've never heard of it...). ScepticWombat (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Pointless - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I never heard of it at the time, and I was heavily engaged in 2012 election drama. Kill it. --Castaigne (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Burn baby burn! --Madman (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
Flash in the pan politics cruft, not worth keeping. Not opposed to merging— see goat below. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Was already deleted; and the deleter ignored the merge suggestion. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Must have been looking at a cached rev then. Harm nor foul not found. Regarding merge, IDGAF. Lack of opposition is only tepid support. Mitt_Romney#Mitt_the_dog_lover? is just fine without mentioning a failed attempted neologism. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I think the animal abuse makes it notable enough. Fuck man, that must've been one hella scared dog. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Merge the gist of it (i.e. a paragraph or two) into the Mitt Romney article. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't even see much point to that. This didn't really take off during the election it was relevant to. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea - perhaps with some "This was/is so 2012"-snark? ScepticWombat (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
If this gets deleted, plz add some of this material to Mitt_Romney#Mitt_the_dog_lover.3F. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Merge into what 141 said. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 13:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I shuffled the police stunt over there. PacWalker 14:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Scott Ludlam | Result: Keep[edit]

Scott Ludlam – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Fanpage of a politician without any apparent mission relevance. ZooGuard (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Seems like the guy is on point about things and a well-written article (the current version is a poorly-put-together piece of shit) would be missional. It would do a lot to move RW away from its US-centricity to have articles onthe Dennis Kuciniches of the rest of the Anglophone world. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Dude's fight against stupidity is actually pretty good and I think missional - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ey Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Dare I say it? It could do with being a bit more neutral. He's not the Messiah. But I think he can stay on our pages. Spud (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

While the article appears to be on mission, to me it reads like a rather sycophantic fanboy page (and the "SRSLY!"-stunt in the photo makes Ludlam look more like a pupil passing around notes during class than a serious politician). Could use a do-over by someone who's familiar with politics down under but not in awe about everything this guy does. Currently, the article reads like some of the more dewy eyed depictions of the Green Party in the UK. My more cynical side is sorely tempted to ask: If they (or Ludlam) are so fantastic, how come they've had so little success in getting people to vote for them? ScepticWombat (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If your (somewhat mainstream) political boogeyman of choice is so bad, why do people vote for them? PacWalker 04:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

4 for keep, 1 for kill. Archive time? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Comedy Central[edit]

Delete[edit]

It's a TV channel, some of whose shows we happen to have articles on. What of it? It's like having an article on, say, Fourth Estate because they publish Ben Goldacre. Bicycle^wheel 20:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
^--Miekal 20:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Nothing this short and irrelevant should survive. Ithaca8 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure there are articles on other networks and such, but this one is barely more than a fork page. Either it needs to be expanded into something that actually describes the relevancy of CC for RW's mission, or it might as well go. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Comparing the size of the navigation template with the actual content...--ZooGuard (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Could pretty much be replaced by a category. Worm (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't need its own category. It certainly doesn't need its own page if that page is nothing but one huge template and four sodding links. Spud (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Kill it. --Castaigne (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Relevant to mission. CC often attacks pseudoscience, fundamentalism, etc. Their shows are the media that make up part 4 of RW's mission. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 21:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
We have articles on the individual shows which do what you say. is there a need for an article on the TV station that runs the shows? Compare for example, Fox News - it's obviously on-mission but its carrier isn't. Bicycle^wheel 21:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
"Often" is a bit of a stretch, tater. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@BW: It's useful as a hub linking to the CC shows. A Fox News carrier article would be relevant if said carrier also hosted other crazy stuff.

@ik: "Often" means "relatively more than most pop culture". A low bar, but CC passes it. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Why do we need a Hub article for them? --Miekal 21:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Makes it easier to navigate to the shows; potentially, could have coverage of shows without their own main article. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
because The Daily Show, Colbert Report and South Park are so difficult to navigate too. --Miekal 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
They aren't. Nobody said otherwise. The article provides a central list of CC's shows, letting people who didn't know about said shows know their relation to each other. And, again, shows w/o main article. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It used to redirect to South Park, but I thought that wasn't appropriately useful anymore now that we have three relevant articles. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

But but but, politically progressive satirical news shows with low tolerance for bullshit. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
We have articles on the BBC and CBC, and that's not counting all the news networks we have articles about. ωεαşεζøίɗ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Unless the CC page is expanded into something like the BBC or CBC (i.e. containing actual information) I'd say it's pointless. If someone can be bothered write a "profile" à la the ones on the other news and media networks who have articles on RW, I'd happily strike my kill vote. I'm not against a CC article on principle, I just think that the current one isn't even a stub and must either grow or die. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
If we have several articles on CC shows, turn it into a disambiguation page. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 00:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
^ This.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

How is that different from what it currently is? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

it would have a small template instead of one dwarfing the content (if we can even call it content). Bicycle^wheel

00:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's 8 to 2. Can someone kill the article? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 04:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper | Result: keeper[edit]

Jack the Ripper – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

I don't understand the article as written at all (seems incoherent) and question the applicability to RationalWiki. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

~~#Really. The only justification would be as an illustration of memes growing and living on. Scream!! (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)~~

Go on then - don't see it myself but ... Scream!! (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean, there's some bullshit pseudoscientists announcing they've "solved the crime" about once every 2-5 years, but I don't think that alone merits an article(and as it stands it doesn't address that). Also: incoherent and stuff per CosmikDebris. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Eh, it's improved on the incoherence front, and the arguments in keep aren't bad. More neutral now. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Clean it up. Relevant to pseudohistory, possibly pseudoscience. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Per FuzzyCatPotato. Highly relevant to pseudohistory and conspiracy theories. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Give it a chance to be revised to something more missional (not to mention better written). The subject itself is highly relevant as the tuber and the Ruritanian dictator have already pointed out: Loads of conspiracy theories and pseudohistory surrounds this one. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Another tuber gives his support to keeping the page. Yes, the original version of this page was utter crap but it's well on the way to being fixed. As the subject of plenty of conspiracy theories, Jack is definitely on-mission. Spud (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Now support keeping, per the utter crap linked down under goat. PacWalker 07:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Moved Presumably on letter of mission, as there are psuedogenii "solving" the murders not too infrequently; people ~~obviously don't~~ don't seem to presently agree beyond that as to whether it fits the spirit of the mission. Not the best writing, but that objection should just raise a sofixit in my opinion. PacWalker 03:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC) (this vote is in fact open to all users, right?) Edited (strikethrough and following) 04:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, you can vote on deletion! But be warned, "Goat" doesn't count for anything; it's a comments section. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I know; I have some uncertainties about whether this article fits the spirit of the RW mission (i.e. is this the sort of crankery we mean to document? Total RW newb (me) does not know...), but I'll leave that to others to sort out, and just put my thoughts here instead of cleanly in keep. PacWalker 03:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

My argument for the article's missional relevance rests, as mentioned earlier, on the number of pseudohistorical conspiracy theories surrounding the Ripper murders. If the Ripper murders had simply been an unsolved mystery, I'd vote for a delete, but since the "explanations" for them includes blaming anything from the British monarchy over Lewis Carroll and Winston Churchill's dad to a vast high society conspiracy involving (who else?) the Illuminati, I think that highlighting these aspects would definitely make a Ripper article RW territory. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving to keep due to sheer facepalm value of some of these: if this ain't first-rate conspiracy nonsense, I don't know what is. PacWalker 07:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

2 to 5. Kill the AFD? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 21:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say give it another 24 hours. If not pitchfork & torch mob shows up, archive this thread. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Archived. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Disagreeing by deleting | Result: it's a joke, kids. also: moved[edit]

Disagreeing by deleting – (View AfD)

THIS WAS A JOKE. BLAME PACWALKER

Delete[edit]

No sane person could believe that this article is correct; as such, we should rid ourselves of it. PacWalker 03:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Sucker count: now up to ~~five~~ ~~seven~~ over 9000.
fffffffssssssssssssss. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 16:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC) sneaky bastard
Definitely not expressing my disagreement with disagreeing by deleting by trying to delete it or anything... ;) PacWalker 16:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
To clarify: this was an (apparently overly) elaborate joke. PacWalker 03:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
While guilty of said crime myself, I do not see any missionality to this article. Cast it into the void. --Madman (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
You get bonus points for falling for it hook, line, sinker, and fisherman. PacWalker 03:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I think it has a place, as it can be seen as a sort of logical fallacy. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 04:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a form of censorship, so of course it should stay, but perhaps with a different title. Bicycle^wheel 10:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Either rename it to Internet censorship or just merge into Censorship. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 15:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep or merge. Censorship on Internet forums, maybe? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

merging into Censorship looks like a good idea. Bicycle^wheel

19:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The article isn't *incorrect*, it's definitely a thing that happens and keeping everyone alert to it is good. If you must merge, Burning the Evidence would be a better destination. MatsFan (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

This is very much a thing - but this is not the title for this. --Miekal 04:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the tile is... not intuitive. "Censorship" may not be the right word though.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What instead? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"Argument By/through/other Censorship?" The point is it's "I'm correct because nobody else disagrees (because i removed all dissent)".--Miekal 18:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I like Argument by censorship. Moved and archived! ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 03:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Farman Nawaz | Result: Took a long walk off a short pier[edit]

Farman Nawaz – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Unattributed copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Farman_Nawaz with at absolute best minimal relevance to our mission. RW is not the place to just dump your rejected Wikipedia article. PacWalker 07:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
What PW said. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 13:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Don't copy your rejected Wikipedia articles with their broken templates, red links and red categories over here. Spud (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Is already deleted. Archived. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

Vagina woo | Result: Keep[edit]

Vagina woo – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This isn't woo. I'd expect a vagina woo page to detail whacky claims about vaginas' mysterious powers. Like, for example, crystals take on healing powers if inserted into one. This page just details a popular misconception. I think that content would only belong on a page just called "vagina". And that page has already been deleted, along with "penis". Spud (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
+1. The only woo listed is just a link to actual woo, the steaming page. Trick (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
And move the one factoid there to a more appropriate home. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
~~Move to vagina.~~ Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

These misconceptions are astonishingly common in the manosphere. Keep article because this bullshit is being spouted. Move it if you hate the title. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no "these" there. There is one basic claim, with a few variants. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Needs moar, but is not a bad idea or a bad start. Vaginal steaming should be summarised here too - David Gerard (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Meh. Looked it over again, has potential for debunking. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
There's plenty more that could be talked about here; IIRC a couple weeks ago a politician thought you could get a pill into the vagina through the gastrointestinal system, for instance. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned.} 19:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

We should rename the site to something along the lines of "Popular misconceptions about genitals" and add nonsense people believe about penises, too.--Arisboch (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I have heard of these misconceptions in rl a lot.(Both the one about women having lots of sex, and the pregnancy one.) I think that if we keep the article, we could merge the G spot article into this one.Make haste slowly (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, it looks like this is a keeper. I can't see any woo on the page, so I'm going to rename it "Vagina myths". Spud (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Training with Hinako | Result: Deleted[edit]

Training with Hinako – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Mission Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
^ Arrr. Super ^{Dude,What does mine say? Sweet!} 20:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Wéáśéĺóíď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't even...--Madman (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman
^Make haste slowly (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
BoN's claim of the article being on-mission (that it tackles exercise woo) is practically absent from the article and who watches anime/hentai for exercise tips anyway? No, the argument for relevance is extremely weak and the content even weaker - kill it. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I can see absolutely no redeeming value for mission-tackling reasons. Exercise woo might include crossfit or some claims made for yoga, but this isn't that ballpark, and no amount of documenting the bad science in this bad anime is going to make it relevant. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Legitimately relevant to mission (see talk page of article for reasons why) ^{— Unsigned, by: 193.71.107.217 / talk / contribs}

Goat[edit]

Give it at least 24 hours; if it's not missional by then, the axe swings. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Perpetual Motion As Its Own Science | Result: Deleted[edit]

Perpetual Motion As Its Own Science – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

it's a load of rubbish Scream!! (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a rather on the craptastic side: somewhat skeptical but lacking in science. Anything worth salvaging could be integrated into the existing perpetual motion article. Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Gong.MatsFan (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The writing style looks eerily similar to Nathan Coppedge's perpetual motion site linked in the article Hertzy (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
That was one hell of a really boring intro, and the article seems to support perpetual motion. I say we nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.Make haste slowly (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Ronald Levinsohn | Result: Deleted[edit]

Ronald Levinsohn – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Obscure Brazilian financial crises not missional; article barely readable Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thought about deleting this myself for identical reasons yesterday. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The element of political corruption in the case is the only thing that is missional, and even so it isn't enough. Bicycle^wheel 20:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The hell is this? --Madman (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman
That makes 5 for delete, in 2 hours. KILL KILL KILL FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
meow.Super ^{Dude,Where's my car?} 21:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, delete. It's basically a copy of the WP entry as it now stands. Bongolian (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, but I've never learned how to to the post-delete paperwork under the fance new-ish delete system. If someone can post a link on my talk page to the instructions I can't find, I'd be grateful. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Hans Eysenck | Result: Keep[edit]

Hans Eysenck – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

One sentence stub about somebody who wrote an anti-Freud book. So bloody what? Spud (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Badly-formatted, tangential to a mission-related topic, currently mostly an irrelevant bibliography and the creator is on notice for some potentially questionable edits elsewhere. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 13:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
An article could be written on his racialism. This isn't that. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Kill it. --Castaigne (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Shoot to ~~thrill~~ kill--Arisboch (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Its more than one sentence now. He wrote about the paranormal, something that rationalwiki might consider connected to science or pseudoscience and rationalism. Freud is the subject of an article. Having an article on Eysenck gives the other side. --PBustion87 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Once you finish barfing at the formatting, the content is actually missional. It's relevant to psychology, racialism, and paranormal. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
His book on the paranormal makes him missional. Bicycle^wheel 20:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems on-mission Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
If the focus is at least as much on Eysenck's research into parapsychology and astrology as on his criticism of Freud(ianism) (seriously, who hasn't jumped on that bandwagon?), I'd say the article is definitely on mission. Keep and see what happens. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

It's been much improved since the AfD was opened, but it's still rather slight. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 10:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but seriously, it's been only 25 hours since its creation and since it may still develop into something (a bit more) on mission, I think the extermination crew should give it a rest. Really, how many of RW's current articles would have survived if final evaluation had taken place within the first day or two of their initial creation? ScepticWombat (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Removed my "delete" vote. The page is improved, though it would be good to know if this guy influenced more prominent paranormal chasers or "scientific racists". If he did, that would elevate his importance, IMO.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Age of consent | Result: ?[edit]

Age of consent – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

"Off mission" -- reason given by User:PBustion87 on page, but posted here by User:FuzzyCatPotato to make the AFD work oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Seems pretty on-mission to me. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not particularly in love with this article but there's no reason to delete it. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Make it three. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Meh. Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
A great opener for New Order's best album. Bicycle^wheel 20:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Doing this to make the AFD happen, not actually supporting delete. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Then why not just let someone else who wants the article gone make the deletion so we at least know the proposed reason. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

... Reasons. I totally have them. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't do that, FCP. We don't need to "make AFD happen" if there's nothing for it to do. --Castaigne (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The guy in delete added the AFD template, but probably didn't understand how to add the AFD here. Just fixing that. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop wasting everybody's time, Fuzzy. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Everyone's acting like fixing someone's unfinished AFD is some terrible thing. It's not. Get over it. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're not a moron you'll have noticed that PBustion87's deletion nomination on this article was just a retaliation for his/her own puberty article being deleted. Do you really think picking up other people's frivolous AFD cases that they can't be bothered to follow through themselves is a worthwhile exercise? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Weaseloid has the very correct point on this one. Let's just go ahead and archive this nonsense. --Castaigne (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's archived.

Sorry, Weaseloid, I didn't notice, because I wasn't following PBustion87's every action. Maybe you could say this next time, minus the insults? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 23:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Or you could go back through the Recent Changes and do some investigative history. ;) --Castaigne (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Generally my thought process doesn't go, "Huh, this person failed to do something perfectly, I better look into their probably insidious motives." oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Mine do, especially a newbie editor on RW or WP - or at least I check for possible malice, just in case. if there is none, fine, and they get a nice welcome template. Bicycle^wheel

18:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Conservation of government | Result: Deleted[edit]

Conservation of government – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Can't verify this through any academic sources or anything. Nor is it a commonly presented notion in the blogosphere. If someone ever references this idea, ever, it'll likely be because it's on rationalwiki, and it lacks serious sociological or other academic backing. It kinda actually makes us look like the left-wing shills we're often claimed to be Ikanreed (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Merge anything useful into an article on privatization. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Looked through this article. It has dubious statements. some verging on loaded language (e.g. "The public mind is not often enough drawn to the idea that a corporation is a government, reaching for power like any other."; "[...]offensive nature of unjust enrichment, which may otherwise be cloaked in Tea Party terms such as 'opportunity' and 'de-regulation'") Since it's not a common notion in the blogosphere, this might become problematic when people use this term when its origins is in RationalWiki. Also, it's not very funny. LEFTY GREENMARIO 20:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

February 2015[edit]

Olavo de Carvalho (portugês) | Result: deleted at creator request[edit]

Olavo de Carvalho (portugês) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Reason Some dude that's really paranoid about having his name show up anywhere (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
~~Currently a 0-word stub~~ Not currently a 0-word stub. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 02:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Creator request, evidently created in error - David Gerard (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Conservative bias | Result: Keep[edit]

Conservative bias – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Needs expanding, and linking with Conservative correctness. Bicycle^wheel 18:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Counterpart to Liberal bias, should be expanded to show how liberals sometimes discredit a source as being "conservative" in the same way that some conservatives discredit a source as being "liberal". FuzzyCatPotato of the Seaworthy Xbox 360s (talk/stalk) 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Could be better, but it seems on-mission to me Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Expand if possible. --Castaigne (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It might be good if the proposer elaborated on why the article is "not needed" because I don't see anything wrong, and having "liberal bias" without "conservative bias" feels like a coverage hole. LEFTY GREENMARIO 20:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Not needed BankBox (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

"Fox News is of course completely biased right-wing arse on a stick" needs to go back in the article. Bicycle^wheel 18:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Brown | Result: Keep[edit]

Andrew Brown – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

A quote-mining, special-pleading writer on a national newspaper is definitely on-mission. Bicycle^wheel 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Needs expansion to better document his activities. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
^ What Bicycle Wheel & FuzzyCatPotato said Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Missional, keep - David Gerard (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep, but only if it can be expanded. --Castaigne (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Not relevant to our mission BankBox (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Con artist | Result: Redirected[edit]

Con artist – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Arguments about missionality don't quite ring true to me. Historical con artistry frequently involved both pseudoscience and crankery. There's no reason that specific people are crucial to the on-mission component. In fact, I'd say they're secondary at best. A quiet stub isn't a problem. Ikanreed (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I would rename the page to con artistry or better yet, confidence game and keep it. A compendium of some of the classic scams and how they're updated for the times, together with a discussion of the psychology involved, strikes me as something fairly obviously missional. This is true even if we can't have a list of con artists any more. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{A ⇒ ¬A.} 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, a move would be crucial. The activity is far more relevant than the people, per my previous argument. Ikanreed (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's missional. A title change would probably be good though - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll support a historical history of con artists. Confidence game seems appropriate. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I would keep and populate with examples of convicted con artists such as Bernie Madoff, Ponzi, Billie Sol Estes, etc. Hclodge (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Many astrologers", "psychics", and woo-peddlers are con artists (not all, though, some are simply delusional). Indeed, probably a large percentage of woo exists simply because some con artist wanted to make a buck somewhere... So it seems on-mission to me. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

This article no longer lists named examples and is a useless stub. Nutty states it should not be expanded with named examples. There is no point in keeping a stub that has non-missionality. Castaigne (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Although I think it is on-mission, it's also a libel-attractor, particularly with the less-than-neutral sounding title of "con artist". MarmotHead (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
~~Is just a dictionary definition of a phrase everyone already knows.~~ Looks like CorruptUser added some more content. Still pretty short and not really a necessary article to have, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
~~Just redirect to Category:Scams or delete. Anyone who doesn't know what a con artist is, can just use a dictionary.~~ Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I merged with Charlatan. Feel free to delete! CorruptUser (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I vote we restore all the people that were removed from the page, for content purposes, but replace all the actual names with Nutty, for libel purposes. Trick (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm pleased to know that Trent and the RMF getting sued is funny to you. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
And I'm just as glad that it's a topic that we can resolve in a caustic and overall irresolute manner. Trick (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Can we not do this, Trick? I don't think it's helping. Ikanreed (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Since the missionality paradox involved here is one not of my authority to resolve, I am ambivalent. --Madman (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
I'm not sure why we can't just open the example section with a note saying not to add any living persons and then fill it with dead con artists.--TiaC (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Possibility of defamation suits from living descendents. Although you might want to check with Nutty to make sure. --Castaigne (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not and never have been the RMF's lawyer. Don't check with me. Try making a good decision on your own. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You don't really want me to do that. My "good decision" will always be "Whatever is the most certain course."...and certainty is best established by permanent deletion. --Castaigne (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Merge it with Charlatans? CorruptUser (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Ok, I prepared it a bit more, and I think it can be added to Charlatans. Anyone know when the results of the vote are? Also, thanks Ikan, added your link. CorruptUser (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Just merge it. The consensus is that this article as is isn't useful but that people want historical examples, which "Chartalans" can provide quite well. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes! Merge with Charlatan. Spud (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
A great source popped up quite recently: How Scams Worked In The 1800s Ikanreed (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Headbangers | Result: No need for discussion, deleted.[edit]

Category:Headbangers – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

You're all just headbangophobes paid for by big pop labels to suppress our freedom to bang our heads. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Empty and unlikely to be used Ikanreed (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I find myself unsurprised by the creator. - David Gerard (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
GO. HUNT. KILL EMPTIES. --Castaigne (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Unused categories can just be deleted. I don't see any point in AFDing them. Wēāŝēīōīď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

oh. Ikanreed (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Prem Rawat | Result: Severely trimmed the page[edit]

Prem Rawat – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Okay, I made some light improvements on the article. Tone's not quite so off, and citing some missionworthy concerns(Though I don't know about this source I used: [8]). I'm skeptical about that's site's claims that the wikipedia page is whitewashed. It could just be a belligerent ex-follower. It's really hard to say. Ikanreed (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree it's a good page to have as such; but right now (even after your improvements) it's very difficult to judge what's true here. There are some bold claims about slavery and scamming, but doesn't really cite any references or bring arguments (I would *not* consider the ex-premie & prem-rawat-critique.org to be very good references here)... For all I know, this page could just be a bunch of misinformation... Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've got no firsthand knowledge, which makes me uncertain about everything. "Nuke and remake later" is always an option, I suppose. Ikanreed (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly that domain is registered through domainsbyproxy, which hides identifying information of the actual register. Certainly there could be legitimate reasons for this, but when it comes to a hit-piece of a site, I'm thinking it's probably the opposite of reliable. Probably should yank it as a ref. Ikanreed (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent improvements to the article. My only motivation for putting it here was the way that attempts to put truthful information onto wikipaedia were quashed by cult members, so the article there reads as if it's a fairly benign cult. It would be good to have a warning here for anybody investigating it, but I quite understand, particularly as I've not got time or energy to rewrite the whole thing, if it's deleted. It'd be a minor public service, I think, to keep it, but I agree on all the points about quality and references. Fustbariclation (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
REWRITE REWRITE REWRITE Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Entirely missional. Rewrite useful - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Not just incoherent and difficult to follow, large parts don't quite match what I read on WP for example (doesn't mean it's not true, of course, but no references cited here). Perhaps worst of all, almost all of the article is copied ad-vebatim from ex-premie.org (article links to the pages, so you can check yourself) Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
~~KILL KILL KILL (or~~ wipe it and rewrite) Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. Spud (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with all of the above. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Attempted to be funny rather than telling something that is likely to be correct. Contractor (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Seems like the subject would be on mission, but it's way too badly written and sourced to keep as is. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a perfect candidate for an RW article, but needs someone knowledgeable about the subject with basic writing skills. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. I did some rewriting, but I lack confidence in the quality of my reference materials because I've never heard of these guys until today. Ikanreed (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we could reduce (ie. rewrite) it to a basic stub, which probably won't be too informative, but at least won't be wrong, either... Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

2014 Longitude Prize | Result: Deleted[edit]

2014 Longitude Prize – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Relevant? BankBox (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
^ Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Not relevant to RW at all. Bicycle^wheel 18:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The history of the longitude price is interesting, but I don't see how it's relevant to RW's mission Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Tom Ruffles | Result: Merged[edit]

Tom Ruffles – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

His only claim to fame on RationalWiki is that he's positively reviewed a few pseudoscientific authors. If we had an article on everyone who fit that label, we'd have a couple million more boring stubby articles. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Cut the article and merge any relevant bits into Society for Psychical Research and/or Craig Weiler as per Carpetsmoker's Goat comment. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Merge with Society for Psychical Research & redirect. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- +1 - David Gerard (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Much of the content was not even required. I don't see why "conspiracy theory" is being misused and thrown like trash as those theories are about pseudoscience, woo, and some real events. Better to merge. Contractor (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Identity politics | Result: SNOW keep[edit]

Identity politics – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Let it snow, let it snow, let it Snow. Bicycle^wheel 23:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This can't be serious. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{A ⇒ ¬A.} 08:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
What the hell?--TiaC (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure BONs shouldn't even be adding deletion nominations, particularly not on their third edit - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Article is conspiracy-woo with heavy homophobic overtones. Also doesn't know what "tokenism" means. This guy is a clown. 71.190.194.2 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Parts of the article have been added or modified by a BoN with some peculiar interests, so the article may need revision and cleanup.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Restore May 2014 revision & go from there. Wéáśéĺóíď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
+1 Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Not actually a list of magic tricks | Result: Deleted[edit]

Not actually a list of magic tricks – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

A strange relic of the Exiled Encyclopedist era that never became an actual list of magic tricks or anything else useful or meaningful. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not really on-mission, and rather silly as well. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Some of the text at the top looks like it could fit into an article about magic (illusion), but what we have here is neither a proper article nor a proper list. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
An article on "Magic (illusion)" wouldn't be on mission for us. Allowing this article to continue to exist was an attempt to be nice to someone who was already whining about being persecuted. Fat lot of good it did us. Spud (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
lolnope - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason for us to have a page on tricks of the stage entertainment trade, is there? Individual tricks might be missional, such as cold reading, but if so they can have their own articles. Bicycle^wheel 22:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

List of minor cranks | Result: Deleted[edit]

List of minor cranks – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Damn, that was quick. I actually thought there was some promise to the idea. There are so many whackadoos out there. The big ones stick in your memory, but a compilation of all the little fringe also-rans would be a handy reference. Maybe not "cranks" though. It gets the point across, but we can just do more quoting of their words if the intention is to be pejorative. How about "stars"? They aren't too bright, there are a lot of them...MatsFan (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown. --Castaigne (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with documenting obscure bits of crankery, although a shift in emphasis from the person to the idea would work best. Plus cites. Lots of cites. Bicycle^wheel 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Bunch of nobodies who may not like character assassination Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Calling people cranks is probably something we shouldn't be doing. - Grant (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, no. We shouldn't be doing it unjustifiably based on personal opinions in a hodgepodge list with iffy inclusion criteria. But cranks exist and substantiated accusations of crankery can be sourced. Caution is the watchword. And this article isn't it. Ikanreed (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Directly calling someone a crank is still not a good idea. Highlighting how their ideas are cranky is a different story. - Grant (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You cannot separate a person from their ideas; they are one and the same. But the issue is moot now. --Castaigne (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
From a legal perspective the two are indeed quite different, at least when it comes to what we say about someone vs. what we say about their ideas. - Grant (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You can and must separate them. But that separation doesn't mean there exist exactly zero cases where a person can be called a crank, just that extreme judiciousness and highly qualified, properly attributed third party support for the claim is necessary. We're in a BLP cleanup right now. Ikanreed (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I find it hard to imagine a source that could be considered appropriate support for calling someone a colloquial, catch-all term like "crank." - Grant (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not must at me. And yes, if they are separate, then there does exist exactly zero cases where a person can be called a crank. If Gene Ray is separate from his ideas, then he is not a crank; it is his Time Cube ideas which are a crank. He is thus perfectly not-a-crank since he is not his ideas. See? --Castaigne (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No, the "must" is there because of our BLP push, and it's well-reasoned due to the legal issues the RMF has had recently. Like it or not, defamation is something we do need to be concerned about. - Grant (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Then if that is a fear, we should engage in mass deletions of living persons in order to protect ourselves. After all, in the USA anything may be litigated as a defamation. --Castaigne (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, so perhaps ensuring we're not actually defaming people is a good idea. - Grant (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Then I recommend that we remove the sentence that "Gene Ray is anti-Semitic, homophobic, racist, and batshit crazy." All of those could be considered defamatory by him, and therefore actionable. I assume that the RMF would be unable to sustain the costs of proving otherwise in a court of law.

"Can be litigated", and "justifiable" are two distinct concepts. Cutting the latter decreases risk, cutting the former is paranoia. Ikanreed (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
As much as I haven't been agreeing with Ikanreed that much lately, this is one case in which I am. Of course, catch-all terms like "crank" and "quack" can be quite difficult to reasonably justify. - Grant (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't see the difference between the two concepts you are referring to. Either it can be litigated or it cannot; if we're going to fortress up, then it should be done right and proper. But that's not for me to decide; I'm just a peon, not a boss. --Castaigne (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, the thing is that understanding why things are helps, no matter who you are. Baring contrary evidence, you're trusted to make the right choices, but you need to be fully informed first. So why the distinction exists: Can you imagine someone going "Hey these people are saying things about me online that are driving my customers away, and it's not true!" Forget the purely legal aspect for a moment. If they can believe for themselves, that the things we're saying about them personally, are untrue, they're far more likely to sue. So if we stick to stating objectively true things about people and criticizing the ideas they have, it mitigates that chance. Ikanreed (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with that entirely. It doesn't matter if objectively true statements about the Kent Hovinds or Paul Elams of the world are made; they're going to sue your ass anyway because you disagree with them. The Roca Labs case is a perfect example. This is how the woo world operates. --Castaigne (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Actually, Hovind sued on the basis of us listing precisely which crime he was accused of incorrectly. Ikanreed (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
And eventually he will sue you on the basis of listing it correctly. Because Hovind. That's just how a Hovind do. (Not that it really matters. I've already blanked out the page. My page. Not Hovind's page.) --Castaigne (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hypothetically, yes he could, but this concern is strictly pragmatic. This is the new standard and the reason for it. Just think on those reasons in the future. Nuance and judgement calls are still going to happen. Ikanreed (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Then my pragmatic response is simply to be safe rather than sorry. Printing nothing that could be used, period, is more certain (which is the most important thing) than trying to guess whether people will agree with a "nuance" or not. --Castaigne (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, no. Proper article for any who deserve it (or add to to do), but not this - David Gerard (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
That's just it; none of these people deserve their own article. No article should exist on a single person unless you can get at least 5 good long paragraphs out of it. --Castaigne (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
For reasons outline above. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason to include, for example, everyone's crazy aunt who swears by homeopathy, only the people with any real influence. So, to the circular filing cabinet.CorruptUser (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Wëäŝëïöïď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I cast greater minor crank, and do 2d3 points of Intelligence damage(assuming I can make a successful touch attack). Ikanreed (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Very well. Go ahead and delete, I guess. --Castaigne (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Rage Against the Machine | Result: delete[edit]

Rage Against the Machine – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Someone has to be the non-conformist around here. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Fancruft & quotecruft. No analysis, article content or substantial connection to site missions. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Concur Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
KILL KILL KILL Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Didn't you write most of it? Wèàšèìòìď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I felt bad for it. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 14:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything mission-worthy here, and doubt it could be mission-worthy at some point in the future Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I can see potential for an article, but this definitely isn't it. Delete without prejudice - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
We should avoid raging. Contractor (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This page has always made me cringe. I'll be glad to see it go. Spud (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Band says left-wing things. While it's a refreshing change from YOLO bling crap, I don't see why it justifies an article particularly. Unless we do articles on other similarly-inclined acts from The Weavers to MIA. Bicycle^wheel 22:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Dubstep | Result: Speedily vaporized[edit]

Dubstep – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Not missional at all John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Щєазєюіδ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
What they said. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Life Giving Moments | Result: redirected to push poll[edit]

Life Giving Moments – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Off-mission stub. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 01:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Spud (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Merge and redirect to Push poll , it's a great example for there - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Dammit David, why do you always have to have good ideas. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll go along with that, although I would have liked to see the uncanny valley stuff given more prominence. Thanks, all. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

John Pack Lambert | Result: Deleted[edit]

John Pack Lambert – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Article subject has raise concerns bout accuracy of main points of the article, and the citations do not bear them out directly Ikanreed (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
All of the above reasons, plus the article is on some guy whose claim to fame is EDITING WIKIPEDIA, fer Christ's sake. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with both the above. Assuming, for the purpose of argument only, that everything in the article is true and could be supported - what, exactly, has this guy done to deserve a personal attack? ProblemChimp (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Ŵêâŝêîôîď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Appears not to be true. Wack it. --Castaigne (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I too have an opinion! Trick (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
(EC)Seems like a Wiki grudge. He seems to have issues with women that got the notice of a NY Times blogger (also some odd "anti-white" comments mixed in), attempts to whitewash LDS stuff on Wikipedia, and is OCD about catagories...but hasn't done much of anything of any note. Certainly doesn't seem islamaphobic. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm ready to call it doomed. 7 deletes and no keeps. Ikanreed (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Caiden Cowger | Result: Deleted[edit]

Caiden Cowger – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Wombat covered me below. Trick (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
With only limited, carefully decided exceptions, minors should not be featured on rationalwiki. They don't need youtube videos they posted when they were 15 following them their whole life. Forget libel laws, we have our own ethical standards to consider here. Ikanreed (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Some pimply-faced kid said something stupid on the internet? Stop the presses! Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Ikanreed's reasoning here. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
^--Miekal 17:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Bomb - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Trick's arguments on the talkpage suggest it should be put to a vote at least: "I feel like this is a pretty useless article, overall. The first (out of 2) references is no longer valid, and it really just boils down to "hey look here's an ignorant kid on youtube"". ~~Personally, I don't feel strongly either way.~~ ScepticWombat (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Newsmonster.co.uk | Result: Deleted[edit]

Newsmonster.co.uk – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

This website seems to no longer exist. Were they ever of any importance? Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Can't even find any links to it online, looks dead and forgotten. The replacement site is owned by the same guy, Danny Penman, who may or may not rate an article - it's certainly still heavy on the woo - David Gerard (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Based on above description by David Gerard, one alternative to delete is simply to change the article to be about this Fenman guy as an online woo peddler - if he even merits a mention, of course. Otherwise, simply assassinate this useless article. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Sceptic's opinion seems good. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 07:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It appears that this website is no more, it has ceased to be, it is bereft of life, it rests in peace. It is an ex-website. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Carly Fiorina | Result: Redirect to 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination#May run for now[edit]

Carly Fiorina – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Nutty Roux (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
~~Notability = dumb. If she exist & dumb, article. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)~~
Removing my vote to keep. Instead, I propose it be merged. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 07:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Who is this person? Why is she important enough to warrant mention?Brenden (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Do rhetorical questions justify deletion? Nutty Roux (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
She's a soon-to-be 2016 Republican presidential candiadate only known for her messy stint as CEO of HP (ie. she has no chance). We don't even have an article on Jeb Bush, in comparison. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Not relevant enough. In her defense though I heard Sean Hannity considered her a RINO but I'm not sure.
Merge into 2016_Republican_Party_presidential_nomination. --TiaC (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Just a rant. Needs rewrite from scratch. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I actually like the govt./business rant, but agree with David Gerard's goat comment below that sticking it in this article is not the proper venue - ideas for articles that would benefit from this rant are welcome! Cut the relevant biographic info and paste it into the GOP 2016 primary candidate box as already suggested. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I support a relevant-content merge to 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination with TiaC. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 07:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I'm willing to be convinced, but most of this article is a coatrack for a rant about incompetent businesspeople and their attitudes in general, which doesn't really belong at this title. (If I knew where it did, I'd put it there.) - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with David. --Castaigne (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Job | Result: Redirect to Book of Job[edit]

Job – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Unfunny stub. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 13:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It came up before (missionality tag). I've redirected it to Book of Job, somewhere both useful and missional - 14:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This page is very silly indeed. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I've changed the redirect to Work ethic as the original was nothing to do with the Biblical Job. Bicycle^wheel 22:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Scholarpedia | Result: Redirected[edit]

Scholarpedia – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Relevant to how not to do it. Miekal could just as easily have added that to the actual article - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Fuck that noise. He deletes, not adds. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
~~DG is correct here. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)~~ Removing my vote. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 07:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems okay ... And the claim that it's dominated by Spam & nearly dead doesn't seem true judging from the Recent Changes page ... Not that it woud matter, as such. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

As much as this would be on mission, it's a nearly dead wiki dominated by spam account creation; and it will never be more than a stub here Miekal 17:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't look likely to progress beyond stub status. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Can't see anything relevant to our interests here. Sophie^Wilder 09:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Mikal's analysis is hard hitting. I'm convinced. Delete whatever he says. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that Mikal's analysis is much more compelling than I initially gave it credit for. In gact, it's pure genius. The stub template should redirect to the afd template and any articles on dead anythings should be deleted. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Unless this stub (2 lines, for crying out loud!) is expanded to demonstrate why Scholarpedia is a particularly good example of "how not to do it", I don't see why a redirect to Scholarpedia's entry on our Wikisphere list wouldn't suffice. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Coyote | Result: Deleted[edit]

Coyote – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Nutty Roux (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Contains the making of at least a basic stub about the mythological trickster figure. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 17:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep, but refocus so that the main emphasis is on the trickster myth figure, as well as any fakelore spin offs. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

What's this got to do with the mission? Sophie^Wilder 20:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Might be stuff here: wp:Coyote (mythology), wp:Urban coyote, wp:Coyote attacks on humans, and wp:Taylor Mitchell.Talk to Civic Cat 20:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd be for an article about the overstated dangerousness of various animals - sharks especially. But it's quite a way there from here. Sophie^Wilder 21:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Toronto police too quick to shoot coyote in downtown neighbourhood: Hume

"The animal was acting aggressively,” spokesman Const. Tony Vella said after the incident, but footage shows otherwise. The poor creature was filmed wandering the streets, even making sure to step aside for passing vehicles. It stops to yawn broadly before loping off into the darkness. This was one well-adapted creature. It did everything but cross at the lights.

The average raccoon is more destructive than this unfortunate beast.

The only aggressive behaviour on display Monday night was that of the police. They are seen shooting at the coyote as it walks beside houses, almost with abandon.

Talk to Civic Cat 21:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... I fail to see your point. Are Coyotes traditionally seen as dangerous to people? Sophie^Wilder 21:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hard to say. There are cases of sharks and coyotes killing people, but they are rare and chances are people have likely been disporportionately violent to both. A slightly greater concern is that they attacked pets and there is talk of the "wp:coywolf (here's a link to a Google Image search). Personally, if you want to delete the article, I'd hardly object, but let's give it, say, a month.Talk to Civic Cat 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Another Toronto Star article with a picture of the coyote that was shot: Coyote shooting in Cabbagetown was unnecessary, experts say. For what it's worth, you might note that there is an article on pit bulls here.Talk to Civic Cat 22:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't delete it if it's just me. Sophie^Wilder 22:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Very well. If there is no decent edits to the Coyote article by 1 November 2014, you have my vote to delete. Others might want to move content to another article or make a sub-page to work on. Howzat?Talk to Civic Cat 22:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

November is here and nothing has changed. Sophie^Wilder 14:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Article about animal-related paranoia, sure. This article, nah. It currently reads like a Fun article, which is really unnecessary here. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything relating to RW:MISSION Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean RW:MISSION Spud (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops >_< Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

This is not a good article, it's the sort of thing we shove to funspace and forget about. Perhaps a good one is possible - anyone want to demonstrate it is? - David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if the RW definition of "fun" includes stuff that isn't fun. Perhaps we could create an article called "Wolves, coyotes, and foxes" and have all redirect there, but I doubt most RW'ians will go for it. I say delete them all. If nobody does, and if there's no substantial improvements in the article, I'll delete it article after, say, 1 April 2015, if nobody else does it before me, and if there's isn't some rule or convention against me doing so that I'm ignorant about. Btw, I just noted a Wolf hysteria

Talk to Civic Cat 18:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

UNTITLED | Result: ?[edit]

UNTITLED – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Reason Wèàšèìòìď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

"Dummy article used by Extension:SimpleForms". Is this still something we need & does it have to be in article space? Wëäŝëïöïď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be something used by various "start an article!" boxes, e.g. on To do. (That said, I see the extension is now unmaintained, so that'll have to go when we 1.23). No idea if it has to be in article space, but I'm disinclined to mess with it - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, this article deletion system & its vague instructions are still total shit. The hell is anybody supposed to know what "preload debate" means? I added the above comment on the "preload debate" link, which has appeared under "goat" (without any indication why), while a meaningless "reason" comment ostensibly signed by me (which I didn't actually write or sign) appears in the delete section above. Wēāŝēīōīď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sudden outbreak of common sense | Result: Merged[edit]

Sudden outbreak of common sense – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Currently the article is just a list of good changes of mind that we like, not actually a useful concept or page. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like stopped clock? I do like the sound of 'sudden outbreak of common sense', though. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what it says on the article's talk page. What the page really lists is liberal points of view being expressed by previously reactionary people or regimes. Some of them resulted in lasting changes, some didn't and could just be considered "stopped clock". None of them would be the result of someone suddenly having a change of heart without bowing to any kind of outside pressure. i'm saying "delete" just because the term is very ill defined. Spud (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I had the same thought as Carpetsmoker: This sounds like a duplicate of stopped clock, even if the title is rather catchy. Perhaps some of the content can be incorporated into our stopped clock article as "similar concepts" or something like it? ScepticWombat (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the article being listcrufty, common sense is kind of a shitty rallying point which people from all sides of the political spectrum and science/pseudoscience spectrum appeal to. The things listed on that page all came about for various complicated reasons, & attributing them to sudden outbreaks of common sense is facile. Ŵêâŝêîôîď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Merge and redirect to Stopped clock - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Gerard. AgingHippie (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Why redirect? Is it really a term people are going to search for? ωεαşεζøίɗ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with having a snarky redirect to stopped clock? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Orion's Arm | Result: Deleted[edit]

Orion's Arm – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

This just seems to be a load of fancruft about an online sci-fi story of no great importance. Spud (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a bit rougher than I would have phrased it but, yeah, pretty much that. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{A ⇒ ¬A.} 06:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Whatever is relevant to RW can surely be slotted into a section in libertarianism/transhumanism (suggested headlines: "in popular culture"/"utopian ideas"). ScepticWombat (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
A mention in transhumanism is the most this deserves. Bicycle^wheel 14:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added what seemed pertinent from OA to the relevant section of transhumanism, making OA ready for the chop. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
All useful info is out. KILL KILL KILL Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Orangutan | Result: Merged into Primate[edit]

Orangutan – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Ook. Wëäŝëïöïď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
<picks louse out of Weaseloid's fur and eats it> ook ook eeeee! Nutty Roux (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't have an article about this group of people on this wiki. Though perhaps the article should be expanded with more information on their cultural practices and commonly held beliefs. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Because, Ook!, that's why! ScepticWombat (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

RationalWiki is not WikiSpecies, and we don't do articles on animals for their own sake. Let this go the way of Felidae and Otter. Sophie^Wilder 13:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Fold into Primate whatever might be relevant. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll second the above votes. (Fold into primates ) C₆₅₄₁ (T↔C) 23:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Above reasons. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Goat Orangutan[edit]

Pour content into Primate, make that article a way better overview of our near relatives (and that would be a missional article because creationism) - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It's a nice little bit of writing but it shouldn't be in an article on its own here. Move the content to Primate, add a similar section on gorillas and you're on your way to making a cracking little article. Spud (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
What they said. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Merge with primate Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I've always wanted to vote orangutan for something. Landmartian (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Power set | Result: Deleted[edit]

Power set – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Hopeless stub. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Two meters. AgingHippie (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Set theory is witchcraft. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{A ⇒ ¬A.} 15:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Why is this an article in the first place? Like, did we have some crazies asserting bullshit about sets? Ever? Ikanreed (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No, idiot. We had an original member of the site adding something he thought was interesting back before this painful deletion culture arose. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
You're pretty fucking crazy about missionality when it comes to things that actually have pseudo-scientific bents, but then something arbitrarily dictionarylike is precious memories.

Is this some kind of fear-of-change thing? I don't get what's going on in your head. Ikanreed (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a little longer than I prefer because I continue to observe a bad habit of yours that I bristle at. Let me walk you through this. You asked a question. I answered it. See that part? The editor wrote something because he thought it was interesting. That was common back in the day. That's the answer. You may not like it, but it has nothing to do with me. Now you're putting words into my mouth and ascribing intent to me that you've fabricated out of whole cloth. I did not express any wish the article not be deleted. Some need to be, however in this instance I feel like I'm remembering correctly that there was already a big discussion of what to do with math related articles. I certainly didn't express any wish that it not be deleted because of my "precious memories". I simply made an observation based on my understanding of the prevailing sentiment about content when this site was young: people generally felt comfortable creating article because there wasn't a cohort of deletionists jumping to smite articles hours after being created. In other words, it's all too common that Youkantreed. I hope you take a moment to consider this and learn something about reading what people actually say. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I see. yet another "I was overtly hostile, framing things as a disagreement, and clearly trying to make a point, but don't you dare ascribe intent to me" reply. Fine. I don't know what you get out of that pretext, but I'll grant you it. Again. Ikanreed (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Nutty, the article was created 11 December 2014, or 42 days ago. So "an original member of the site adding something he thought was interesting back before this painful deletion culture arose" doesn't seem accurate, since he added it after "this painful deletion culture arose". Anyways, this has been a lovely conversation. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:08, 22 January 2015 (UUTC
Thanks for correcting me. You are right. I was absolutely positively incorrect in making any assumptions about this very early editor's lack of savvy on how you all run things now. Delete delete delete. Did you delete yet? Oh good. Nutty Roux (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Before I confirm yet again that it's time to show your your ass from a hole in the ground, please do me the courtesy of explaining your analysis there. Dude, you're a moron. It's ok. Lots of stupid people learn they're stupid. The smarter among them never will. That's you. Nutty Roux (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to respond. Please, calm down. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 12:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Fred Karger | Result: Keep[edit]

Fred Karger – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Generic anti-gay stuff sounds like it counts - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Harmless unique content consonant enough with mission. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
See above two. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems okay. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Why not? So the article is basically a stub (I'd love to hear more about the "responsible for the ads that ruined Michael Dukakis's run for president in 1988"-stuff for instance), but being the first openly gay POTUS candidate ought to merit a keep both in terms of U.S. political history and RW mission. It also illustrates that there are still people willing to run for the GOP who aren't Tea Party nutters or über rich vulture capitalists. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Looking around, He hasn't done a whole lot recently besides generic anti anti-gay stuff and basically had 5 minutes of fame as a openly gay, no-shot candidate last election. Basically, what are we going to say that wikipedia doesn't already cover in a more formal tone. If there is more and i just didn't see it, i'll rescind my vote though. Miekal 13:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
He might be relevant in a few years if US conservatives come to their senses and decide to take a more conciliatory approach to gay issues. But otherwise, no. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Thallium | Result: Deleted[edit]

Thallium – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Currently the article appears to be mostly about foolhardy uses of a toxic chemical in consumer products. This seems to be reasonably related to the mission, at least to me. It could use some sources, to be sure; then again we aren't Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 19:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It's an example of scientific stupidity. Hubris, and reminders of it, are sometimes required. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Unless radium also deserves deletion, I don't see why thallium is singled out. Okay, the snark factor is a wee bit over the top in the latter, but that hardly merits the axe, does it? ScepticWombat (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

This was written by someone who thought Rw was wikipedia-lite; it has no relation to any part of the mission Sophie^Wilder 22:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
But it forms "large flabby singly-charged ions" ... just not enough to keep around. Delete!MarmotHead (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
K#ill it. --Castaigne (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Kill it with fire. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
--Coffee (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Meh. Every wiki that has any information has an element set. Sterile (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comparative advantage | Result: Deleted[edit]

Comparative advantage – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Ehh, stubs happen, it's not useless or off-mission - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't object to its length, I object to its content/quality. Show it to an economist and see how they will react.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see it kept, but its current content is crap (see my delete vote) and I can't be bothered to rewrite it here and now. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep, rewrite from scratch as a one-sentence stub, and hope someone eventually makes a decent article out of it. Probably won't happen, but you never know. Landmartian (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

An orphaned article that contains a very distorted description of the actual concept (see wp:Comparative advantage). It seems to have been created solely as a vehicle for a rather... unique rebuttal to a MRA talking point. ZooGuard (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Copy the MRA part to an appropriate article, delete the rest. Bicycle^wheel 23:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a useful concept... But is unlikely to develop into anything useful to the mission. Move the immigration stuff to an immigration article, the misogyny stuff to a misogyny article, and kill it. FuzzyCatPotato of the Big Adjectives (talk/stalk) 01:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I read the WP article, realized our article on it is also a wee bit, kind of, somewhat, slightly, wrong. FuzzyCatPotato of the Big Adjectives (talk/stalk) 01:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
This article simply seems wrong. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This is not what economists mean by the term. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Eh, there's something Not Quite Right about using this subject to deal with issues around misogyny/immigration and the like. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 04:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The theory of comparative advantage has often been used to show how relations between the sexes can be made more harmonious and productive; see for example the "Division of Labor" chapter of It's Not You, It's the Dishes (originally published as Spousonomics), or this article, the latter of which shows how even when women are superior at all household tasks, it is still optimal for men to help with the chores in which they have a comparative advantage, so women can focus on what they have a comparative advantage in. Wikipedia notes that sex‐differentiated comparative advantage in tasks was part of what led to the evolutionary origin of the sexual division of labor in humans. As for immigration, economist Benjamin Powell explains, "free trade in labor, like goods and services, allows people to do what is in their comparative advantage. Immigrants free up natives to take more valuable positions." That was exactly the point that the article made. Landmartian (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I did not investigate the subject in depth, but the Wikipedia page has a vastly different explanation of the term. If this term is also (ab)used to promote something in RW:MISSION, then it seems it's a good page to have, but, it needs to 1) explain what the standard definition is, and then 2) explain how this definition/idea is abused. As you see, almost everyone agrees this page should be deleted as it stands be cause it seems misleading, so if you want to keep this page, you need to rewrite it (if it fits RW:MISSION that is, I don't know if it does as I don't know enough about this) Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
While an article on this topic is probably relevant, the current incarnation misses the central point of the comparative advantage hypothesis: That a focus on comparative advantages in the guise of cheap labour and/or raw materials tends to lock in poor countries as low-profit primary sector producers. Indirectly, comparative advantages thus simply assumes that the status quo is somehow the default or "natural" position, missing the point that comparative advantages have their own history and can be shifted. If taken to its extreme, it's the argument that only Great Britain should have industrialised, because the rest of the world would be "comparatively" better at shipping food and raw materials to Britain and buying British manufactured goods in return. Sure, comparative advantages can be (ab)used in a gender perspective too, but that's hardly the most prevalent, or (arguably) its most problematic usage. Its use in ensconcing gender inequality is "merely" a subset of the general kicking away the ladder logic by which comparative advantage thinking tends to favour the status quo (or even seeks a return to a past status quo). ScepticWombat (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The concept of comparative advantage also can be used to support free immigration, which can help solve the problem of locking in poor countries as low-profit primary sector producers in a global economy. Suppose Britain has all the factories. If people are free to migrate from agricultural countries to Britain, they can still participate in industry, provided that they can compete with the native workers there. In practice, industry has tended to be quite willing to hire immigrant workers, despite their cultural differences.

Comparative advantage exists not only between countries but between individual people, so it not only makes sense to have free trade among nations but also among all the people in the world. The full implementation of that requires the removal of impediments to migration so that people can travel to wherever in the world they can contribute most optimally to production. Landmartian (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem is again that comparative advantage arguments seem to have a nasty tendency to morph into a sort "economistic" version of paternalism: You're comparatively better suited to a minimum wage job trundling hazardous waste, because I'm willing and able to pay to be educated, and so I'm "over-qualified" for such a task, while you come from a family of semi-illiterate subsistence farmers in Bongo Bongo Land. Yes, comparative advantages can be used to argue for freer migration, but look at who is doing the arguing: I doubt it has as much to do with the wonders of multi-culturalism or meritocracy as it has with keeping minimum wages at, well, a minimum. Also, who gets to determine what people's or countries comparative advantage are? ScepticWombat (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the invisible hand that guides people to the job at which they have a comparative advantage. People apply for the highest-paying job, with the best working conditions, for which they're qualified, and end up where they have a comparative advantage. Landmartian (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

How abused does a concept need to be before it warrants an article? Like I don't think anyone here thinks that Quantum physics shouldn't exist. This subject is a lot narrower in terms of who abuses it. I don't feel like I have an objective assessment for when it should versus shouldn't. Ikanreed (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Some concepts have articles because they're abused, others have articles because they can be used to counter abuses. Landmartian (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of them want to abuse you. Some of them want to be used by you. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sweet dreams,ScepticWombat (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Weaseloid.

Everybody's looking for something. Bicycle^wheel

21:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Who am I to disagree? Landmartian (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Quora | Result: Deleted[edit]

Quora – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

It contains the word "misogyny" so it is totally on mission. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This page is shit, and should be deleted, but Nutty's obsession with dismissing certain classes of bullshit as beneath our attention is obnoxious as fuck. Ikanreed (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how you get along in life. Not all "classes of bullshit" are on-mission. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I get along in life by not putting up with non-answer deflections like that. Authoritarian, traditionalist bullshit is one of the primary targets of both rationalwiki and feminism. You get stuck on it for some damn reason and rather than articulate a clear unambiguous argument as to why the whole "Authoritarian as hell" point is unreasonable, you just elected to follow a campaign of sarcasm, pettiness, and snide derisive backhanded insults at people who share a goal of making rationalwiki an informative, comprehensive source for people who want to approach the world skeptically. I don't know if you're just one of those people who goes has unwarranted disdain for the social sciences, but the concerns here are articulated far more evidentially than you're passively giving credit for. Ikanreed (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Non-answer deflections? Youcantreed. Don't you dare suggest that I have disdain for social sciences, by which I assume you mean the narrow set of interests you express. You don't know the first thing about me, what I believe, or what I've chosen to stand for. Not that you deserve a response in this regard, but I will say that aspects of my entire career have about activism on behalf of traditionally disenfranchised people. Your intimation is revolting. Your implication that the social issues you're concerned with have anything to do with skepticism, while certainly with merit in the broader skeptical movement, is the "non-answer deflection" to any discussion of what the mission actually is. It's not about a general approach to skepticism. Simply asserting that "Authoritarian, traditionalist bullshit is one of the primary targets of both rationalwiki and feminism" is simply that — a mere assertion. Addressing authoritarianism seems to be the main justification for ever deeper and deeper explorations of topics I don't think are of particular relevance to what authoritarianism actually is. It's not simple bigotry, hate, or disdain for the "other" and subaltern. This kind of response of yours is why I don't think you're a worthwhile discussant. You spew nonsense in the guise of some kind of intellectual authority you simply lack. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
"I don't agree with you therefor your arguments lack intellectual merit" is pretty much the recurring shitty core of every single time this comes up for you. You know damn well it's not true, and that it's a lazy-as-fuck ad hominem to disguise the larger bare assertion that there isn't a dramatic pseudoscience element to a lot gender related beliefs and behaviors and a larger authoritarian structure to support it. You can go through my edit history, and I've always approached feminism articles from an empirical and skeptical position, and never endorsed fluff articles that don't help like this one.

But you've got this incredibly wrong-headed idea that because fluff exists it can invalidate a topic. Which is dumb. Really dumb. You know why it's dumb. If you put more effort into fixing the issues in gender related articles and actually nuking the genuinely off-mission ones, and less into mindless derision we'd all be better off. Ikanreed (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it very interesting, Nutty, that all of the "classes of bullshit" that you find to be not on-mission all happen to be ones that you personally dislike. Specifically, anything involving misogyny is not "on-mission", which I don't find credible. --Castaigne (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

# How is it different from Yahoo! Answers? Neither particular strike me as critical or that useful, but do seem to meet at least point 1 of RW:MISSION ("Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement."). Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

For a start, the current text says nothing about pseudoscience or the anti-science movement, and implies that the only reason for including it are some gender-related issues in the community. I am not opposed to the existence of an article about Quora, I am opposed to this being the article for the foreseeable future.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, many arguments for misogyny are pseudo-scientific ... In any case, I've done some interwebz searching & thinking, and changed my vote. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So rewrite and improve, as just happened with Pantera. Bicycle^wheel

19:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

I don't see any mission relevance in the current text. ZooGuard (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
How can this every be mission-centric? Sorry, I don't buy it. Yahoo! Answers should probably deleted too. Sterile (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
From what I can gather in a few minutes of internet searching, Quora isn't a "a cesspool of misogyny, racism and homophobia spun out of control" as the linked article claims. Of course it has some dubious content, but you have that on any large site (where people gather, the fuckwads also gather), and Quora seems to deal with this as best as they can (a problem almost all large sites struggle with), perhaps they should do more, but it's certainly no 4chan/8chan where "anything goes". Unless someone comes up with decent information/examples showing Quora really *is* misogynists, racists or homophobic (the linked article isn't enough, IMHO) I vote to merge te content in one of the other pages (manosphere?) & delete Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't substantiate the claims made about Quora by research. Carpetsmoker appears to be correct. I say delete. --Castaigne (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Merge it into the manosphere compendium. Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The thing about that is it really isn't an overt part of the manosphere even. It's just a site with some sexism problems. A lot of those exist, and it's not really uniquely notable in that regard. Ikanreed (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine, delete it. I don't know or care anything about it. Ŵêâŝêîôîď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Mixed economy | Result: deleted[edit]

Mixed economy – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Expand, not delete. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to imagine a very strong page, but making note of people who view mixed economies as "socialism" and the like is probably good fodder for snark. Ikanreed (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Tentatively maybe on-mission, but this is just a dictionary definition right now Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds lke an argument to improve, rather than delete. Add some arguments about why it's good (or not) with examples. Sophie^Wilder

20:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by stub by a lame parodist. ωεαşεζøίɗ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Anne Rice | Result: deleted[edit]

Anne Rice – (View AfD)

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. Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

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. ωεαşεζøίɗ ^{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)
~~See Nutty.~~ Edit: Nutty is a sarcastic ass, again. But feminism is still relevant. Feminists are relevant, by extension. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (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? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

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)
Delete.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Goat[edit]

Deceit | Result: Keep[edit]

Deceit – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Come on. It's one of the Seven Deadly Virtues. It is also just bizarre enough to be interesting, and that excuses a whole lot. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 06:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you could salami slice the more esoteric forms of deceit and make them into their own articles... but why? Also, a lot of these subcategories (affinity fraud, path dependency) don't even have their own articles yet. Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Above reasons. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Nutty Roux (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Needs improvement; but seems good to have (many pages link to this) Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Update: I've made some fairly large edits; it's still not a great page, but I think it's a lot better.Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This is really a list of rhetorical techniques used in a lot of anti-science, pseudoscience and denialism. If it really does get deleted the content should somehow be ported into other articles such as rhetoric. Sterile (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

An embarrassing remnant of RW's early days (based on the old Schlafly meme of "liberal deceit"). Stripped of the CP-baiting, it's just a listicle about a generic concept. RW needs less of those. ZooGuard (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not a good article, and being not a good article at length doesn't help - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not so quick, David. Ask Mikal if this needs to be deleted. Your opinion is tainted by a long and sordid history of creating excellent content. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Move to CP space? Scream!! (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Pantera | Result: Keep[edit]

Pantera – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Cut it way down and stick to the references. It's salvageable. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean that you volunteer to do it?--ZooGuard (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Does it look not-stupid-enough-to-delete now? Or does it need more ~~complete rewriting~~ improvement? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest treating it as a fringe "theory". Start with the 2nd century rumor and the generic "Panthera", then point out that someone claims that the actual multi-named Roman soldier is identical with the character, not the other way round, as it is now.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That sounds good. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
~~Subject matter is crucial for the relatively benign claim that Jesus probably wasn't supernatural. Ikanreed (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)~~
You know what? That was a stupid post. That's what. Ikanreed (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It might not be crucial, but it doesn't hurt, and it does offer an alternative to the virgin birth. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but it's a bit like saying aliens provide an alternative to creationism. True, but you don't want to through in your lot with pseudoscience. Cleaned up and clarified, it's a good article. Ikanreed (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Nutty Roux (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I've just read the old version of the article from the day it was nominated for deletion. God, it was shit! FuzzyCatPotato has done a great job of cleaning it up. I think the page as it is now details a notable example of someone questioning Jesus' divinity and is wort keeping for that reason. Spud (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Now it's been turned into a proper article instead of a crappy...whatever the hell we call what she does... it's a keeper. Bicycle^wheel 23:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

An embarrassment to the wiki, created in the august 2007 by, ahem, Barbara Shack. Apparently some people later added some ridiculous stuff to the article as a protest. It didn't help. ZooGuard (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
~~Yeah, it's pretty terrible. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)~~ The previous terrible version is effectively gone & FuzzyCatPotato's new version is alright, so I withdraw my vote to delete. Wēāŝēīōīď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The gospel walking-on-water Jesus didn't exist. Somebody with a name like "Jesus" may have existed who gave birth to the mythical Jesus. But if we doubt this guy existed how can we make any comments about an hypothetical father? Delete.--Bob ^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 15:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That seems weak. This article explores the possible father of a possible Jesus, which is relevant to our mission of looking critically at religion. Should we also delete the Jesus page, because Jesus merely possibly existed? Furthermore, if this man really is Jesus's father, then it dispels myths about a virgin birth, making the human Jesus more founded. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
A "possible" father of "possible" person is also weak. It makes about as much sense as arguing whether or not Hercules had a human father.

Furthermore we do have at least two pages which talk about the possible non-existence of Jesus.--Bob ^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It would be comparable to an article on Herakles' father, if people worshipped Herakles as a god. They don't. More than a billion worship Jesus as a god. It's important to show that it's possible that he had a normal conception and birth, and this article helps that goal. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Then we disagree.--Bob ^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Category:Slaveholders | Result: Deleted[edit]

Category:Slaveholders – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

I did not add pharaoh, rather left it up for discussion. I do not own articles, that's Ryulong who owns super sentei and denies the denies it has size change, like all mvoies with giant women. [9]. I say drop Hitler because otherwise Lincolns whitehouse staffed by slaves would count; not all pharaohs owned slaves either so ignore that one, pretty sure not all Caliphs did either. Also notice who David Gerard didn't remove Muhammad. It's sexist to think someone LGBT can't be racist; your ignoring this category is historical revisionism. Is there a rule against flash mobbing these discussions, becuase that would favor anyone who knows off wiki contact info; so it would be a dumb rule. Also it is polite to allow both sides to form a flashmob; mentioning an end date would assist with this so ample time is allowed to prepare an infinitely large jury.

Delete[edit]

Pointless category, and EE's argument in favour of its relevance illustrates why, as well as implying that Wikipedia refusing to go along with EE is some sort of conspiracy. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As I put it in the nomination on the category page: "I agree with Wikipedia that this category is rather pointless. We could start adding pretty much every ancient history figure to it. Contrary to EE's claim on the talkpage, this is not some sort of historical whitewashing to avoid having "too many U.S. Presidents" included, but instead it illustrates the pointlessness of the category". ScepticWombat (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete Scream!! (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it's an EE dropping? Kill - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
this in particular is not a good basis for deletion. I don't have any reason to explicitly keep the category, but not one of the claims here in delete makes any sense at all from a wiki quality perspective. Ikanreed (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry that I didn't copy/paste my reason from the nomination on the category page. I've done so now just below my original delete vote. Nevertheless, I still think that EE's argument for creating the category is actually an excellent argument against its relevance. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It was actually created by CivicCat in November 2013.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. I didn't check the fossil record, and EE's justifications on the category talkpage seemed very "ownership'ish". Sloppy work on my part, sorry. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
What? No one added Obama yet for enslaving us all with his Nazi public health care?!?! Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Useless diffuse category. Thomas Jefferson is an obvious candidate, lately in the public gaze, but Alfred the Great and Pharaoh also qualify. So what? I don't see the point of gathering such aah, diversity into one category, to say nothing of the extensively tedious wikilawyering it will invite around characters like Hitler. Carpetsmoker may be joking above, but some currently prolific RW editors have a less humorous bent. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete. This is not a defining category and would include almost every person we have a page on from a few hundred years back. If we must have something like this, a "List of people who owned slaves" page would allow us to make the point about past attitude towards slavery without catagory-spamming the wiki.--TiaC (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Reluctant delete. I can see why it looks missiony, but in the end it's not really relevant to the arguments about either individual slaveholders, or about slavery itself (unless anyone is saying "slavery was OK because Thomas Jefferson"). In the end it's like the arguments about Hitler being a vegetarian, or Einstein being religious - it's a bit of random gossip that says nothing about the issue. Bicycle^wheel 19:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
We don't need a category. We need a page that lists slaveowners in eras when slavery was beginning to be more commonly attacked, such as Jeff. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

It's more tangible & less arbitrary than many of our other categories (right of reason, centrist stupidity, extreme moonbattery, batshit crazy, bullshit, unremitting horror, etc). ωεαşεζøίɗ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but those are extremely informative categories. Helpful ones. They alert you to the flavor of crazy you're dealing with. Whereas this one is dry historic fact. Ikanreed (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You closed this after a day! The much more important issue is whether or not this slavery information will be important enough to include on the pages for presidents up to Lincoln.

Most of the entries for unremitting horror are serious though; just dry historic bones. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-binary gender | Result: Deleted[edit]

Non-binary gender – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

I've got no objection to an article on this subject. What I can't stand is copypasting from other wikis. The red links and the broken templates for "Quotation", "Urdu language" and "Citation error" clearly indicate that this was carelessly copied from another wiki. Non-binary gender on Wikipedia redirects to Genderqueer, which is quite different from this page. I'm guessing this is a copy of an old Wikipedia Non-binary gender article before it was changed into a redirect. Spud (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It contains text from both wp:Third gender and wp:Genderqueer.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
~~KILL KILL KILL~~ Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 06:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
KILL KILL KILL, but just the parts that are redlinks, that are templates that we don't have, and that are blatant copies. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
and rewrite from scratch Bicycle^wheel 18:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete for reasons stated above. In addition, we have Gender binary already, which seems to cover the same subject already? Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete Well, fuck. I didn't know we couldn't copy-paste from Wikipedia. Mea culpa on that one guys, I'll go delete it, I'll have to rewrite it at some point. It was a clumsily stitched together Frankenstein of an article anyway, I'll write a better version in the future. My bad. Asarelah (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Wow. Nominated for deletion within 12 hours of being created. Nice. The article is actually stitched together from a few resources pretty well. They're CC by SA, but not attributed. It's great that nobody bothered to even let the principle author know that his or her contribution is going to be deleted for reasons that are entirely correctable. Good work. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh god, we've become Wikipedia. Ikanreed (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Communpedia | Result: Merged[edit]

Communpedia – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Nutty Roux (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Nearly dead wiki that doesn't seem to really matter, and theres no real way to make more than as stub for it Miekal 17:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete everything. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Merge anything useful into Wiki. Sophie^Wilder 08:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Merge into Wiki article. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, there's also RationalWiki:Wikinode. (This post should not be counted as a vote one way or the other.)--ZooGuard (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Merge. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Meeeeeeeeeeerge.ClothCoat (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've merged it, the votes were (4 v 2 v 1) FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

John Duffield | Result: Deleted[edit]

John Duffield – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Time to dredge up some references and make this turd sparkle. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

This article is Encyclopedia Dramatica quality. Write something sober and considered or this needs killing. The talk page is a disgrace. We are not here to target people. David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
And the subject has complained. Maybe it's a list of valid concerns, but if so then it seriously needs writing to that effect - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
^--Miekal 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
It does read as if someone's got a personal vendetta. Scream!! (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The sources are poor: Mostly there are internet forums with little (to nothing) to link JD to the writer. The Amazon site just is. There doesn't stand to be any improvement, so I don't think there is any reason to keep. And the above. Sterile (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete, let physicsBlog and Gizmodo keep a log of this crap so he can try to sue them. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Wait. Didn't you write it, defend it, and taunt him ^{— Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs}
I wrote it and defended it till he decided to try and get my personal information in order to harass me. It's not worth it on a wiki. I see less provocation than what can be see in the articles for ShockofGod, Ed poor, and VenomFangX. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
What do those articles have to do with the price of fish? There's nothing unreasonable about asking for the identity of a gutless anonymous editor taunting you. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The price of fish? It was to show the level of snark and insults in pages which have already existed for years. Where the hell did you get fish? Why not is pretty much what is expressed in the doxing page. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
This. - Grant (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Context does help. I think it's a legitimate question when I get crap for being insulting when dozens of other pages have existed for years with much more insulting (and sometimes more invasive) information with brainstars for quality. Why is this not a legitimate question and a non-sequitur? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Why non-seq? Because Nutty. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 08:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete and ban editors who start getting into legal discussions with visitors discussing potential litigation. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Not really notable. - Grant (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Begone already. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should delete the page. He's not relevant, his ideas might deserve a sentence or two on another page if they've been mentioned enough places.--TiaC (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
(I've copied TiaC's comment from the Goat section below to this section too to make it easy to keep score on the delete votes) ScepticWombat (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Maybe collapse into a section in Alternative cosmology? We could just put a quick summery of his theory and a sentence or two debunking it. But yes, the cyberstalking of him across the web should go.--TiaC (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't know what "debunk" means if you think an alternative cosmology can be debunked in one or two sentences. Back in my day, we called that argument by assertion. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It is surprisingly easy to point out a few glaring issues in a half-baked idea. E.g. "The theory conflicts with numerous astronomical measurements and ignores well-accepted ideas such as conservation of charge."--TiaC (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

How can you tell? There's nothing about what is there is on the page. Just that it exists. Sterile (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

See, that's what you call an argument by assertion. Statements like yours work better when you cite someone credible actually doing the analysis. Is this sloppy thinking and argument the norm among some of the louder new editors? Nutty Roux (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me where I said not to use references? As noted on the talk page, there are refutations of his ideas out there (In fact, some are even in the references). However, none of them are in the article. As a minor internet kook, one of the best sources would be his own book.--TiaC (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you've put me on ignore. Because obviously I'm the one in an echo chamber and not you. You are amazingly antagonistic, don't actually contribute outside of attacking people, and ignore anyone who disagrees with you or your methods.

--TiaC (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am certainly antagonistic to morons and my days of contributing as a board member are over, though I'm still and officer. I hope you're in the minority in thinking I don't contribute anything. You've been here for s little over two months. I've apparently pissed away years of good will and being well regarded to fight with people like you, but it's worth it if I can bully enough of you into leaving. My motivation ought to be pretty clear. To say that I ignore people who disagree with me or my "methods" when it's pretty obvious I smell blood and can't help myself when people like you run your mouths, is a lttle weird, don't you think? I wish I could ignore you. I really do. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So harassment's fine when you're doing it. Got it.--TiaC (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sterile's point is still valid here, in that those sources aren't exactly credible. While having said refutations present would be better than the current status quo, it's still not a good solution compared to just deleting it and moving on. - Grant (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's another perspective: if these ideas aren't notable enough for any serious refutations to be published, why should we have an article about them at all? - Grant (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should delete the page. He's not relevant, his ideas might deserve a sentence or two on another page if they've been mentioned enough places.--TiaC (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ann McElhinney | Result: Speedy deletion[edit]

Ann McElhinney – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Ad hominem, no citations, no links. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with FuzzyCatPotato. Not only should this article be deleted, but it should be recreated. McElhinney is certainly an enemy of science and of nature, but she nonetheless deserves a better article than the current one.In Dawkins we trust (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
On-mission subject matter, terrible article. 141.134.75.236 (talk)

Goat[edit]

This version needs to burn so somebody who isn't crazy can rewrite it.--Miekal 03:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Robot | result: DELETED[edit]

Robot – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

Strictly hypothetical for different non-existant version of article: transhumanist assertions about robotics, the end of labor, conspiracies about drones and automation are all on mission. Ikanreed (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

The article robot just appears to be a series of trivia about various robots or proto-robots in no particular order. It isn't a good overview of the subject & doesn't appear to serve the site missions. It's been mission-tagged for two months with no improvement. See talk page for previous discussions. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
2009 creation by driveby editor; has had work since then, but nothing very good. Longish, but sorta sucks - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
If it would stop the plagiarism from Wikipedia and the whining and cries of persecution after it gets undone, OK. Spud (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
1. I bet the whining and crying never gets as bad as Talk:Felidae. Sophie^Wilder 17:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Maybe the stuff about robots in mythology could go in the ancient astronauts article if they've been mentioned in that context. Sophie^Wilder 22:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Talos is an example, but the text is not worth moving - any coverage in the AA article will have to be writt2n from scratch.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sluthate.com | Result: redirected[edit]

Sluthate.com – (View AfD)

Keep[edit]

It is basically the manosphere in a nutshell and is more raw than Return of Kings and provides a better look at misognyny.
Keep. I consider it on-mission to document the places where the loons dwell. This article would be better served by an overview of the prominent leaders/posters of the board, however. --Castaigne (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a dual PUAHate/Sluthate article might work. I don't think there should be articles for every Manosphere website though, only the most notable ones. I think Manosphere should otherwise act as a containment --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Not notable for project and covered at Manosphere -- Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I am extremely reluctant to support deleting content when it's even marginally missional or good support for a missional subject. This is very much off-mission. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Merge and redirect into the section on Manosphere - David Gerard (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Merged. Brenden (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2015

December 2015[edit]

Xenogender | Result: Merged with non-binary gender[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Joy of Satan (español) | Result: Deleted[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Juan Andrés Salfate (español) | Result: Deleted[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fun:Ray Comfort | Result: Redirected[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Angela Merkel | Result: Redirect to Germany for now[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Andrea Yates | Result: Deleted[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

All non-English articles | Result: Leave them be for now (some articles deleted or put up for AfD)[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep all[edit]

Keep some[edit]

Goat[edit]

Jerboa[edit]

Jerboa x Goat[edit]

Ferret[edit]

Mowse[edit]

RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic (2nd nomination) | Result: Kept[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Give it to another wiki[edit]

Goat[edit]

Timeline of Gamergate | Result: Kept (snowball clause)[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Category:Victims of medical woo | Result: Deader than the victims themselves[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fun:Kurt Wise | Result: Wisely dead[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Rapa Nui | Result: Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

November 2015[edit]

Kwanzaa | Result: Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Yi Deokil | Result: Deleted[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Vaccine911 | Result: Deleted[edit]

Delete[edit]