Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is underway and will end on November 16.

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2015

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Contents

December 2015[edit]

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

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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)
  2. 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]

  1. 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. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Merge with non-binary gender. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Masturbation masturbation pies pies Brian Cox 15:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. What Ray said. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. What Ray and Fuzzy said Hertzy (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. What, Ray, Fuzzy and Hertzy said. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 17:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. 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]

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

Joy of Satan (español) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. Since I'm quoted above, I have to say "delete" too. Spud (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Yee, outright hit piece with absolutely no references. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png You know who else exercises leeks? MY MOM! 13:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Like they said ^^--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. [joke about sacrificing this article to the dark god Satan] FuzzyCatPotato of the Rhythmic Nouns (talk/stalk) 15:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. 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) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)

Fun:Ray Comfort | Result: Redirected[edit]

Fun:Ray Comfort (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Not funny. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Again, I can't disagree with the reason given for deletion. Spud (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 19:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (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)
  3. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png For no man is an island of tat 13:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Right in your neighborhood!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 04:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Andrea Yates | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png 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. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 13:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. 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)
  2. 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]

  1. 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) Queexchthonic 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 YatesWikipedia's W.svg 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)
  2. Do what Queex said. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (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]

  1. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. Plays the ballad of LeandroTellesRocha |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I AM VERY DISGUSTED WITH THE TRASHY MAN 12:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    Tempt me not to bring out the writing pen. WalkerWalkerWalker 22:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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]

  1. This sweeps with too broad a brush. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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]

  1. 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. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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. WalkerWalkerWalker 23:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Agreed on warranting an actual discussion rather than a flat purge. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. 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)
  7. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 04:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  • Scope clarification: does articles mean mainspace only? WalkerWalkerWalker 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¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png 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]

  1. Yes plz. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 04:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ferret[edit]

Mowse[edit]

Mowse.png

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

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Previous AfD here

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 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? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 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? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. no really wtf why is this even here |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png This isn't 'Nam. This is exercising. There are rules. 01:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. My opinion hasn't changed. Not really missional. Vulpius (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. There is no relevance to the mission. Aleksandra96 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. Just horrible trash. Typhoon (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. 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)
  12. 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. MtDNotorious Sodomite 05:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Jesus Effing fuck why is this even a question? rpeh •TCE 22:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Kill it with a razor-edged fedora trilby - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. 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 CatullusWikipedia's W.svg! JorisEnter (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Repetitive nomination, was kept towards the end of October. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ok WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png 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)
  3. 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 #NotAllMenBronies. 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)
  4. Oh not again, Celestiadamnit!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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.—RyulongDo 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)
  6. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. I like ze drifting mission, iiit is güd. WalkerWalkerWalker 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. WalkerWalkerWalker 05:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Keep per my previous reason. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:51, 2 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. 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)
  11. 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)
  12. 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)
  13. 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)
  14. 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)
  15. Keep per previous reason. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. 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)
  17. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Throw in some more focus on the "accepting and tolerating others means accepting and tolerating neo-nazis" nonsense that exists in the fandom. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 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 SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 04:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png 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.
    WalkerWalkerWalkerDo 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. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. 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!™ (talk/stalk) 23:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. I like it, it's comprehensive. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Very good reference; one of the best on the 'net. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. No substitute. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 01:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. 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. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 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? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Not funny. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. The template text "Tired of laughing?" just fits that article too well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. I can't disagree with our feline friend's reason for deletion. Spud (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. Come on. We actually need an article about Rongo-rongoWikipedia's W.svg. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. relevant re: ancient aliens and Von Daniken. Acei9 06:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. 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)
  7. Keep, missional - David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. 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)
  9. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 14:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

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

Keep[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. What Dendlai said, I agree with it. SolPyre (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Dendlai&Smerdis+1. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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. FuzzyCatPotato of the Christian Orcs (talk/stalk) 11:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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]

  1. 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. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 10:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Vaccine911 | Result: Deleted[edit]

Vaccine911 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 10:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Inactive AF. Twitter account last updated in 2010. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. "terrible article about a bad neologism for "equivocation" that has any currency almost nowhere Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. 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?
  2. 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)
  3. 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]

  1. Add a single paragraph subsection to the Equivocation page, plus redirect. CorruptUser (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. I like SW's idea. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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)
  5. 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]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I like... being punched in the face. 02:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Quite similar to Overgeneralization, isn't it? Dendlai (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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. Queexchthonic murmurings 21:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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)
  5. 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)
  6. Axe it. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. Anything useful can go to overgeneralization. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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. Queexchthonic 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)
  4. This has gone nowhere other than to circle the drain. Queexchthonic murmurings 22:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. There's no such animal.---Mona- (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Neologism, yes. Useful concept, also yes. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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]

  1. There's nothing wrong with us making neologisms, but they really ought to be evidenced. This one isn't, yet. BicyclewheelModerator 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. BicyclewheelModerator 11:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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 SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 21:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorkatonaság | Result: delete[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Appears to be plagiarized from elsewhere. The parts that aren't plagiarized have poor grammar and are personal rants. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 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 SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 19:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    But he has kwonledge in electronics! BicyclewheelModerator 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. BicyclewheelModerator 09:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
No platforming (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Delete: As the original creator, please DELETE. Aneris ✻ (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 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)
  4. Delete or change it to be something other than ramblings. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 12:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. https://xkcd.com/1357/ Typhoon (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Delete. Nothing here salvagable about the snarl word. Hipocrite (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. 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)
  8. Not an improvement on a red link - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  9. Delete, if only to encourage Ruylong to get out of the basement for a while. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  10. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png 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]

  1. Keep but improve/rewrite. This is basically the same as Cordon sanitaireWikipedia's W.svg, 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 NamazieWikipedia's W.svg) and TERFs (Germaine Greer and Julie BindelWikipedia's W.svg).—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.Queexchthonic 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. Queexchthonic 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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)
  4. 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)
  5. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. 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. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, 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. SanterWikipedia's W.svg 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)
  8. KOMF 03:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. 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]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. FFS, yet another pointless Evowiki port. Do we really need a page for Evowiki's bland, dull article about ourselves? BicyclewheelModerator 23:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. You finally got the AFD right! "Recent Changes" looked funny there for a while. Dendlai (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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)
  4. Doesn't do anything, and doesn't need to be preserved as a redirect - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Compulsive hoarding? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Pointless shit. Get rid of it. Spud (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. 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?" BicyclewheelModerator 00:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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. The FCP Foundation (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." BicyclewheelModerator 11:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

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

Chomsky rule | Result: Redirected[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

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

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Just Merge it with the Chomsky page.--Owlman (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Merge with Noam Chomsky is probably best. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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)
  4. Agree. Bongolian (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. Merge with Noam Chomsky. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. 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)
  8. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

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

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Anders Björkman | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. Yeah it can go. A non-notable nut job.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs)

Delete[edit]

  1. This will never amount to anything but an embarrassment. KOMF 17:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. "We're waiting for someone to go there and write up here" is no way to write an article. BicyclewheelModerator 19:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. WTF. FuzzyCatPotato of the Pugnacious Persons (talk/stalk) 20:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Oliver Canby | Result: Kept after rewrite[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  1. Author has LANCB. I doubt anybody else is interested enough to work on it. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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]

  1. 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)
  2. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. 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]

  1. It could be merged into the wiki section with the other crank wikis. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. I second this. Aleksandra96 (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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)
  4. Merge into wiki. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 05:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Merge as above, prune back the office politics. BicyclewheelModerator 08:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. +1 — Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Transitioning neckbeard | Result: deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Definition of a narrow term, best suited as a section in a larger article. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. A sentence or two in a larger article, if even that. Alec Sanderson (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Worth keeping, but as part of either TERF or a transgender glossary if we have one. BicyclewheelModerator 22:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. ^^What they said. SolPyre (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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. WalkerWalkerWalker 22:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's an anagram of "Goat nicked intern's brain." BicyclewheelModerator 22:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Doxing | Result: Snowkeep[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. This is called "conversation" in ordinary circles. This is nothing remarkable or missional; just talking about someone. WalkerWalkerWalker 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. WalkerWalkerWalker 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]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. A bleeding obvious keep. I am not sure the VFD originator knows what doxing is.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. A lot of this wiki is about politics, which is similarly "conversation". Hertzy (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. FFS, this one stays. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. SNOW keep. BicyclewheelModerator 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. 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. WalkerWalkerWalker 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. WalkerWalkerWalker 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Definition of a narrow term, best suited as a section in a larger article. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. This is not SJWiki. Alec Sanderson (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. What Alec said. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Yee |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I suppose there is no fantasy like power fantasy 22:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. KOMF 22:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Done Transphobia#Transgender people Aleksandra96 (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. As a redirect to somewhere. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

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

User:Aneris/SJWMedia (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. User space. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. User space. Also a good source of lulz. Typhoon (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. 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)
  7. Yuzr Spess. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. Aneris' sandbox, duh... ScepticWombat (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  9. Is this a joke? Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. Agreed completely with Carpetsmoker. – AOAPJM (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Agree with the above comments. -gmk7

Keep[edit]

  1. Save the snark!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (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. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Keep - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Tasty snark is tasty. Come now. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. 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)
  7. 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. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  8. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. 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)
  6. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. Has some missional aspects to it, the current lead section described this fairly well. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Keepity keep. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:44, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. Keep it. --Castaigne (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  8. Don't delete. Anypony can see it's missional.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. Keep. It covers some of the BS over the show and the BS over the fanbase. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  11. "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)
  12. 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)
  13. 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)
  14. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. This one actually makes sense. KOMF 01:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. HATE to agree with Avenger but ... Scream!! (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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)
  5. 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]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. Presents one fringy side of an alleged debate as fact. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Needs sources, bad. Asserts conspiracy theories. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 04:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. Source or destroy Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Angus King | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. not missional, stub Bongolian (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. not missional, stub Bongolian (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. Yes. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Agree with David. Not over, still ongoing - keep for now. --Castaigne (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 18:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. 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]

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

Twelve-step program (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Expand or remove Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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]

  1. Missional, might have some good quotes Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 05:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. Missional. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. It deals with the themes of the mission, just needs expansion. Tuxer (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. While possibly missional, it's not there yet.--TiaC (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. A resounding "meh" - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Missional: probably, like this: meh ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

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

Keep[edit]

  1. 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. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 17:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support structure for evolutionary articles - David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Keep'n'expand, yo. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Hanne Tolg Parminter | Result: Keep[edit]

Hanne Tolg Parminter (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. Keepity keep. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:26, 8 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
  4. Deletion argument is unconvincing. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. Needs fun! FuzzyCatPotato of the Melodramatic Thumbtacks (talk/stalk) 16:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. No debunking present. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk)
  4. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. ^ 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)
  3. See RBS above. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk)
  4. 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)
  5. 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]

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

RationalWiki:Internet relay chat (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. Not used. FuzzyCatPotato of the Bare Ramen noodles (talk/stalk) 15:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

  • 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? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Stupid. Barely missional. Without the DAL stuff, a stub. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Bad humor. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Yep. Boring as all hell. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Move to redspace - David Gerard (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Dictionary definition, and doubtful misionality Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Die. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. This is a badly formatted, stalkeresque piece of shit that will never help anyone in any way. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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]

  1. An important piece of Conservapedia's & RationalWiki's early history. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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)
  2. 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)
  3. this is a big part of CP and RW's early history. It wasn't even mentioned at the Great CP Article Purge, though. BicyclewheelModerator 13:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 16:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    I make it four keeps (Weaseloid, Goonie, me, Castaigne) and two merges (you and Percy). BicyclewheelModerator 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Niche | Result: Keep[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

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

Keep[edit]

  1. Was a nice read. Could use more content. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:50, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

FBI biometrics database | Result: Deleted[edit]

FBI biometrics database (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. Delete it as is. Or expand/rewrite if anyone is interested in doing so. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Don't see the missionality. Kill. --Castaigne (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. Expand and update it or kill it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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? BicyclewheelModerator 19:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Off with its head! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Redirecting to science is the only logical solution. That's just basic science! BicyclewheelModerator 19:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    I support making it a redirect to Science. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 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. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. 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)
  7. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. It's shit. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fallacy misidentification | Result: Redirected[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Stub entry retreading fallacy fallacy with a rather weak & awkward example WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. What Weasel said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Pretty much redundant to Fallacy fallacy as above, and deserves only to be a sentence or two in that article. BicyclewheelModerator 19:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Either redirect (I'm not sure it's identical) or kill - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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]

  1. Merge. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (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]

  1. Axe-grinding without relevance to mission. MaillardFillmore (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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)
  3. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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)
  4. .--"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)
  5. 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)
  6. Kill it with Scorpio.gif Blacke (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  7. Delete and start over, preferably written by absolutely anyone else - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  8. Lemme on the bandwagon, will ya? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. I'd say it is on-mission, but improvable.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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)
      • 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. off mission article about a minor UK politician TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. Weak keep (we do that here, right?). It needs expansion, particularly is authoritarian words and deeds need detailing. If not, redirect to New Labour. BicyclewheelModerator 10:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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). BicyclewheelModerator 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)

Sargon Of Akkad | Result: Deleted[edit]

Sargon Of Akkad (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. Delete as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Worst article ever Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. 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)
  7. Not notable. Kill it. --Castaigne (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. 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. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

New Apologetics | Result: Keep[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Until cites, not worth it. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 07:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Die die die die die die die die Blacke (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Seems to be a valid, vaguely missional subject. Just need cites and snark.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. As the Orwellite above says, it's missional, it just needs expansion. Cites and examples especially. BicyclewheelModerator 08:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    Orwellite? Uncertain if compliment. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 09:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    WP:The Road to Wigan Pier. BicyclewheelModerator 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.
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. 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)
  6. 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. WalkerWalkerWalker 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. BicyclewheelModerator 17:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerboa[edit]

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

Black Lives Matter (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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]

  1. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. Edit war bait? You mean like most of the articles here? --Akira (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Easily on-mission, and "people may edit war about it" is a crap reason to propose deletion. BicyclewheelModerator 19:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Might as well be arguing for deleting Occupy Wall Street. CorruptUser (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. 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)
  7. Why in the world would this article be deleted? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  8. 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)
  9. 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)
  10. Spurious reasoning is Spurious --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  11. 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)
  12. 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)
  13. --Owlman (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  14.  ????? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  15. 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)
  16. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 18:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. 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? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Not really an article about anything & certainly not analysing & refuting anything; just a few random quotes & other scraps of trivia thrown together. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Nope. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 07:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Nuke from orbit Blacke (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. It's more like an overgrown fork page than an actual article, but if you trimmed it back, would it still be worth having? BicyclewheelModerator 09:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. Kill it with fire. --Castaigne (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

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

Goat[edit]

Takedownman | Result: Keep[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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]

  1. 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
  2. Give it a few more days. If shrubby over here can make it decent, then it can keep. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. We do have to do this eventually. KOMF 18:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Keep for now, pending improvements. Dark Web is something we should cover better. BicyclewheelModerator 09:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. This article has potential. Keep it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Definite change of mind after recent work by Deku-shrub. The potential is there. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. 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)
  8. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. Delete. Off-mission, twisting of words in regards to how this word is used here, anyway.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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)
  5. 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]

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

Video games featuring positive female characters (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. Amen to that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. Balete it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  8. 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)
  9. 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)
  10. Cruft magnet. Alec Sanderson (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  11. 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]

  1. Keep and expand. --Castaigne (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. Fails the "so what" test in its present state - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Shoot to kill.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 10:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. I thought it was a bit of a poser when it first appeared, but was hopeful it would flesh out. Apparently not. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Doug who? ScepticWombat (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. Improve not delete. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. This looks entirely on-mission - David Gerard (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. ^ 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. Improve not delete. Also, "running out of" uranium? Debunk this stupid film. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. No reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

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

Goat[edit]

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

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

Category:Extreme wingnuttery (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) & Category:Extreme moonbattery (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    Aye Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, way too broad and vague. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Ditto. Spud (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Yup. Make haste slowly (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Delete as offensive to bats. (((Zack Martin))) 11:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  6. Are cats elegible for AfD? If so, yeah. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Bird don't sing, the wind doesn't blow 13:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  7. Kill it. --Castaigne (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  8. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. The subcats are better & are useful Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Kyubey stares into your soul. /人◕‿‿◕人\ 13:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • We could use these categories as either a category new users can use, who're not sure, exactly which kinda wingnuttery/moonbattery an article deals with (so that more experienced editors can transfer it into the appropriate category, if needed) or for wingnuttery/moonbattery, which doesn't fall into any of the other categories.--Arisboch (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it not time someone closes this? —Bilorv (smells) 01:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    I see five comments in favour of the new categories & seven in favour of deletion if you discount FuzzyCatPotato who seems to have changed his mind. Deleting the cats from every page will be quite a big job so I'd rather the outcome was clearer first. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    Nah, most of the articles have been moved to the new smaller subcategories. There's only a few pages left in these categories. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    But the subcategories are as stupid as the original ones. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    Y? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    For all the reasons I stated above. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

EvoWiki/Terms of use (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. This is a canonical example of cruft. Alec Sanderson (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 21:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Redundant WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. For crying out loud, why is there any discussion. DELETE.Scream!! (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. 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. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (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? FuzzyCatPotato of the Cheesy Cuddly toys (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. FuzzyCatPotato of the White-male Hostels (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!" Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (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? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 21:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. This was a two line stub of no value. I've gone ahead & deleted it. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

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

EvoWiki/Suggested uses of EvoWiki (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 21:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. This is just pie-eyed brainstorming. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 21:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Lame WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/History | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/History (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 21:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Nothing useful that isn't already covered on the main EvoWiki article. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Goals | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Goals (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 21:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. 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. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Help | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Help (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 21:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Fuck no. Our own help pages are enough of an ill-curated confusing mess without throwing other wikis' own help pages into the mix. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Featured articles | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Featured articles (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 21:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. 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. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Feedback | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Feedback (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 21:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Looks like an idea that didn't take off even at the time. Kill it. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/About | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/About (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 21:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. This is more ancient help/instructional content which serves no purpose for us. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Editorial philosophy | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Editorial philosophy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Nothing here that isn't better covered in our own Community standards & FAQ etc. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Community portal | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Community portal (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. A portal full of dead links for a dead community. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Vandalism | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Vandalism (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. More old instructional stuff from another site, most of which won't work at RW. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

EvoWiki/Main Page | Result: deleted[edit]

EvoWiki/Main Page (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. having evowiki articles is good, but having its main page is pointless. BicyclewheelModerator 17:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. 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? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (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. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (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. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (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. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (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. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (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. FuzzyCatPotato of the Egregious Sporks (talk/stalk) 19:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Delete - crap! Scream!! (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Delete.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. No harm in having it. Further, having it preserves something that would be lost. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (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. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. Scream!! (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. If somebody wants to bother making this a good article, sure. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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