RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2014

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

2024 archives 2023 archives 2022 archives 2021 archives 2020 archives 2019 archives 2018 archives 2017 archives 2016 archives 2015 archives 2014 archives

December 2014

Chris Ladd | Result: keep

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

Keep

1. RW don't need no "notability" criterion. Osaka is just salty. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
2. I thought his blog was popular enough. I figured he was also noteworthy because he offers criticisms of religious fundamentalism, global warming denialism, authoritarianism, etc. from a centre-right perspective as opposed to the usual center/centre-left criticisms which I also like but it still offers more diversity. He also seems to upset the clogosphere wingnuts often enough to be at least relevant but I don't know I didn't think anyone would mind having a small page on him sorry. We seem to have pages on more obscure "internet kooks" and the like though. ClothCoat (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

   Look, I'm as happy as anyone that an endangered species of Republican exists frantically trying to prevent their party from jumping off a cliff, but this guy's just a precinct captain who has a blog. His points are not new and there are similar pundits with a far larger audience. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

   I was thinking about it and I think the page should stay for now because I've seen people use him as a source on blogosphere page and so on and this way if people want to know more about him or how reliable he is (or isn't) then they could look it up here to know. I think the fact he's not as wide read as someone like Josh Barro is actually a good case for an article on him because no one on the Web has covered Ladd's views before and this way they have somewhere to reference in the future. That way we have articles on sources that are useful and (fairly) popular but still not covered anyways by, say, Wikipedia. That's just my two cents though if people overwhelmingly decide to delete and only have him on the blogroll I'll understand. ClothCoat (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

3. Not influential enough? I don't think some of you quite grok that having articles on people who might not be "influential enough" means that people are going to come here to learn more about them. The same goes for anything else. I don't have the heart to go look at how many articles have been deleted because they were on topics that the 5 people who delete shit on this site didn't think were a big enough deal. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Not influential enough for an article (should be in the Blogroll instead) Osaka Sun (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Lithium | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. "no relation to the mission, just a science article." (From Sophie Wilder on the page, I think we could probably have an article about its use in woo.) TiaC (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As no one has spoken in favor, I'm nuking this.--TiaC (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Off with head! The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 04:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Juggalo | Result: Deleted

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

Keep

1. Has potential. Possibly the magnetic kind. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Is stub. Is stupid stub. Is never not be stub. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Don't even bother counting votes: just delete it! Scream!! (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Lies to children | Result: Deleted

Lies to children (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

• With some fixing-up and removal of literal "lies to children" and more information on what that phrase actually refers to, the article can be reconciled with RW's objectives. ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 01:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• It is not off-mission. Children are taught to obey to some degree of authority at a young age and some of them involves lies. It might seem like a minitaurized version of Authoritarianism at some level. And please keep the (deleted) fun space jokes if we are keeping this article. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  Except that your interpretation has nothing to do with the intended meaning of the idiom - see the article's talk page or the first reason for deletion given below. (And this is one of the reasons why I think that the current form of deletion "discussions" is crap - the reason why an article was proposed for deletion gets buried and overlooked. And it seems that people don't look beyond the section they want to vote in.)--ZooGuard (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I think that it isn't a bad idea or concept for an article. It needs revision not necessarily deletion. Samstr (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Nothing wrong with lists and if there are problems with the article fix instead of deleting if possible. Nobody is saying the whole thing is bad, are they? Nutty Roux (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (There was lots of time to fix it, and no one did) Ikanreed (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. As pointed out on Talk:Lies to children, "lies to children" is an idiom coined by specific people with a specific meaning, and the current text of the article does not represent it correctly. It seems that it takes the literal meaning of the phrase too seriously and then tries to shoehorn all kinds of misconceptions-taught-in-US-schools under that label. At the moment, the article is a listicle with unclear inclusion criteria. It needs to be either mercilessly pruned and rewritten, or deleted until someone creates something better. ZooGuard (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
2. It's an arbitrary trivia list, and the information in it is lousy. Many of these are probably not taught to anyone, just common misconceptions by people who haven't studied the subject at all, and some of them are pulled out nowhere: e.g. nobody believes that "Martin Luther King united all Americans behind stopping racism". Some of the 'explanations' on the page are worse than the myths themselves (e.g. the one I removed stating "the Puritans left England after people literally didn't want to put up with their totalitarian shit"). Give the author of option of moving it essay/user space; otherwise delete. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
3. I agree with all of the above. The title of the page is misleading because it doesn't correspond much to real education anymore. The page is just a list of popular misconceptions, such as you can find on dozens of different webshites, and serves no useful purpose. Spud (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
4. As it corresponds with popular misconceptions, the article should be deleted, but the information folded into a more appropriate space. --Castaigne (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• Children are idiots who believe almost anything you tell them. Ikanreed (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Bear Magic | Result: redirect

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

Delete

1. Haven't we moved beyond taking the piss out of individual Bible verses in this way? We certainly should have moved beyond making up silly names for them like "Bear Magic". (A Google search for "bear magic" turns up ads for pencil crayons and trading cards but doesn't turn up any atheist snark from anywhere else). We're not a spoof of Conservapedia, not anymore. We don't need this "It must be true because the Bible says so" crap. Spud (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• It's kinda funny, it could be moved to funspace.--TiaC (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Redirected to Books of Kings, shortened considerably - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Crash (2004) | Result: Deleted

Crash (2004) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. What the hell does this have to do with the mission?--TiaC (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

To exploit how bad this movie is. I can also write an article about how Avatar is blatant propaganda, if anyone's interested. Roomfan (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The site's mission is:

• Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.

• Documenting the full range of crank ideas.

• Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

• Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Now, tell me how this applies to your article.

1. Even if a film like Avatar is full of standard issue Hollywood eco-religion and noble savage stereotypes, that doesn't mean that the best place here to discuss those aspects of the film is an article on the film itself. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 03:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. If a movie sucks and a tree falls on it, would anyone be there? There's probably some trenchant criticism to be made here about wasting a bunch of money and the time of a few (though not 22) skilled actors just to exploit white guilt for a lil gold trophy. But the article doesn't do that. It just reams out the movie, which is like shooting fish in a barrel where there's no water and the fish start out full of bullets. The plug for the almost-as-bad Cronenberg Crash is just the turd-cherry on top. Goat the fuck out.MatsFan (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Goat

Move to userspace or essay space if Roomfan wants to keep it, but it certainly doesn't belong in mainspace. Sophie^Wilder 22:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I like this one better. Roomfan (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Pick one then and I'll move it. Unless you do it first. User:Roomfan/Crash or Essay:Crash. Sophie^Wilder 11:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been two weeks. The user hasn't moved it to essay space or user space. It's time it was gone. Spud (talk)

November 2014

Duga 3 | Result: Redirect

Duga 3 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Possible vandalism?Samstr (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Probably not deliberate vandalism but an extremely badly written bit of shite. Spud (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• Not vandalism (hopefully), just a shitty stub. The concept it covers though (all the fun of shortwave/conspiracy noises) could be a good article perhaps. --Miekal 04:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• I've redirected it to List of conspiracy theories, which is the only mention of woodpecker stations we have. Though woodpecker and numbers stations would be a good thing to have an article on - David Gerard (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Idiocy of Intimacy | Result: Deleted

Idiocy of Intimacy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. A Google search for "idiocy of intimacy" only returned four results for the same 1998 paper called "Nationalism: The Idiocy of Intimacy" by Professor Erik Ringmar. The phrase doesn't seem to have caught on with other political commentators. Nobody uses it to describe the phenomenon of people voting for UKIP because they think Nigel Farage is a nice bloke. That's real enough, of course, but nobody calls it "the idiocy of intimacy". Spud (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
2. ^ What he said ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Usless stubby stub Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. References: Ikanreed (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Goat

So rename it to something better. Sophie^Wilder 13:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Fraktur | Result: Keepish

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

Keep

1. To me, at least, neo-nazi bullshit is on-mission. Rationalwiki is my best source for IDing things about those scumbags without the risk of tacit endorsement. Helpful reference for deconstructing authoritarianism. Ikanreed (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Could do with being a lot more on-point, but is on-mission as is IMO - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
3. It's a fine little article about something interesting that's on point. You people and your fucking obsession with deleting content. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
4. If moving it into another article isn't an option, then I have to change to keep.--Miekal 14:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Since it seems I was wrong to think that the content could be moved elsewhere, I have to say "keep" too. Spud (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Off mission Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

#There is a missioney link here, and so it's a weak delete at best, but as is, the article gives the impression we're talking about this just because for a little while the Nazis liked it but then stopped liking it. Is this really a big neo-nazi or Nazi thing? If not I don't see the need for us to have an entire article for it versus merging it into an existing article about the nazis..--Miekal 14:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't get the impression that either of you even read this article. I'm sticking up for it because this is a perfect example of why AfD gives dipshits like Mikal a hardon. It's too easy to use. "The Nazi link tenuous at best" Care to justify that? It's at least a misstatement of fact. "Is this really a big neo-nazi or Nazi thing?" It's a Nazi thing. I see. You really didn't read the article. Neo-nazi? Who knows. I removed that from the article because it's someone's opinion. "I don't see the need for us to have an entire article. ..." Yes, of course you don't. But why not? Nutty Roux (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Which is why i supported moving it into some other article if there was one, but you know, accuse me of just wanting all of it purged, that works too. I don't think the topic itself warrants an entire article just for itself, it's just a font type; a pretty fonttype that the nazis used, but in the end it's still just a font and any information on it could be used to improve one of the nazisim articles instead of being locked away on some page people will probably never find. --Miekal 14:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I am accusing you of wanting it all purged, insofar as I take by your use of hyperbole that you know exactly what I'm talking about. Taking it further, I'm sure you'd be a lot more comfortable on a RationalWiki that was nothing but talk pages. "... but in the end it's still just a font and ..." This about sums up the quality of your analysis. Oh and "See also" is a thing. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed a thing, but then you have to hope people will click through to it. I don't want this content purged, i want it put somewhere it has a better chance of being found without somebody looking for it directly or clicking a see also link. I think the content belongs on RW, just not with it's own article--Miekal 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Then you have no idea how an encyclopedia and its tools work. I can't help you except to say that "See also" is exactly how encyclopedias deal with this situation, not by cramming more and more related ephemera into main articles. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Partially merge and redirect to alphabet? That article could use expansion on political and religious implications on the choice of script. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 16:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have merged much of the text into alphabet now, and expanded that article with discussion of the use of alphabets as political and religious symbols. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 17:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Why did you do that? A typeface is not an "alphabet". I'm moving it back. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

James Traficant | Result: Deleted

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

Keep

No need for deletion. Stop censoring.^{— Unsigned, by: JonCGerald / talk / contribs}

Delete

1. Crappy article about a person who's irrelevant to RW's scope. ZooGuard (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Off-mission badly written crap. And censorship has got sod all to do with it. Spud (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like nobody's interested in improving the page, so goodbye. Sophie^Wilder 18:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• Yeah, I'm not convinced about a random corrupt politician. (Remarkable hair notwithstanding.) Though I'm willing to be convinced if anyone wants to fix this one up quick smart - David Gerard (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps if somebody were to say what was in his "hilariously cranky speeches" the article might stand a chance, but as it stands now it looks like a fanpage written by and for people already in the know. Sophie^Wilder 08:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Whoever photoshopped that weirdo's head behind that blonde wig didn't do a very good job.

Fun:New Conservapedia | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. the wiki is dead and it was only ever a parody of CP, why do we still need it? Miekal 17:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Don't merge into wiki, just delete. It was a joke wiki, not a very notable one, founded back when Conservapedia had been in the news and people were aware of what it was taking the piss out of. Those days are long gone. Spud (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
3. If Mikal says it should be deleted, it should be deleted. Because Mikal. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• Miekal, have you ever considered writing in article space? - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  But that wouldn't involve him waving his dick around--"Shut up, Brx." 01:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  I have, but then i remember i have no idea what i'd write about and lose the drive for a day.--Miekal 03:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Merge to either Wiki or RationalWiki:Wikinode. Sophie^Wilder 09:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Profumo affair | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. "Not relevant to the mission" was Osakas Reason Miekal 13:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
2. An early 1960's political sex scandal has nothing at all to do with RationalWiki. Sophie^Wilder 15:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
3. An early 1960's political sex scandal has squat diddly to do with RationalWiki. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
4. An early 1960's political sex scandal has buggery sod all to do with RationalWiki. Spud (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Goat

I haven't even read the article, so i don't have a vote for this. Does probably need a rewrite though.--Miekal 13:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

BADD | Result: Keep

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

Keep

1. I think this is on the ball about the silly moral panics that have come across. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
2. A Particularly famous moral panic no less. Without this, no Dark Dungeons. You can't delete poor black leaf again! It's precisely the kind of thing rationalwiki would be actively engaging if it existed in the 80s. So on mission. Ikanreed (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Seems like an obvious candidate for keepage. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Still has effects to this day. Thanos6 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
5. On-topic and informative - David Gerard (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Keep. We don't need to keep folding pages in on themselves until there is only 8-9 superpages covering everything on this site. --Revolverman (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Is a long-defunct group really relevant?^{— Unsigned, by: Kels / talk / contribs}

Goat

• Merge into Dungeons and Dragons. Sophie^Wilder 20:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Unless it can really expand, merge into D&D like ^ said.--Miekal 21:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect (in case someone is searching a 80's reference) with Dungeons and Dragons supported--dx (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Whataboutism | Result: probably not delete

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

Keep

1. It's not just about logical fallacy, but also about propaganda & authoritarianism. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. I don't see how this is relevant as its own fallacy. GØØBY PLS ^{Please don't breathe} 10:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Gong. Roll into tu quoqueMatsFan (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• It's Not as bad as. Also "whataboutery" - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect to Not as bad as, which is what I thought it was called when i looked--Miekal 19:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• +1 to my fellow goat-voters. MarmotHead (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Given its customary use, it would be a fair fit as a special section in tu quoque, but meh. By itself, it is not too stubby. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Merge into either not as bad as or tu quoque. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
• It's closer to tu quoque than 'not as bad as'. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• Aye, the thing doesn't necessarily need to be worse, as long as it is still reasonably bad or shocking. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Adorn the new king…} 05:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Extreme Parenting | Result: Delete

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

Keep

1. Yeah, I know, not as bad as: but if we have articles on minor racist vloggers, and we seem to have a few, we can actually devote space to a television program that broadcasts on a real network and has a presumed audience beyond Internet kooks. Especially when it apparently contains self-documenting and interesting woo. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 05:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Do we need articles on every crap reality show? Is this show actively promoting pseudoscience or woo? Is its intention to get people to change their parenting behaviour? If that were the case, it would be relevant to us. However, I imagine it's more pointing and laughing. Not every show on which morons say stupid things is within our scope. Spud (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Delete, with leave to re-present if written to serve the greater good the mission. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Reality shows depend on hyperbole. Not really worth documenting. Генгис^{Gum disease} 15:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
4. I have no idea about the merits (if any) of this TV show, but the article is anecdotal & engages in the kind of drooling voyeurism the TV show presumably encourages. It's not analysing anything & doesn't seem to have a point to make either pro or anti the show. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• Missionality could do with enhancing, as could more to say about it than pointing and laughing - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• I'm actually on the fence. It's very point and laugh stuff, but I don't think it's very helpful without explaining some of the "wha?" bullshit it has going on. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this is a keeper (sigh). It needs improvement, but which articles don't? Spud (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, now it looks like delete. I wish you other two fellas had come along earlier. Spud (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Conservapirated | Result: redirected

Template:Conservapirated (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. There's simply no reason to have this template. We have a fair use template, and the "ask for permission after that fact" most certainly doesn't give us a legal reason to use an image without permission. That is, we are opening ourselves up to being sued. Further, the wording makes the site look terrible. Sterile (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Agreed, time to put this one out to pasture. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Aye. Send it to live on a farm upstate. GØØBY PLS ^{I am complete} 10:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Aye. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• Yes, it's an awful piece of crap. Unfortunately, it appears on hundreds of file pages. I think the best thing to do is to make it redirect to the Fair Use template. Problem solved. Spud (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Obvious right answer. Redirected. Anyone who cares can go through what includes Template:Conservapirated and see what needs the other fields filled in - David Gerard (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Madisonstar Moon | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Barely-missional ED point-and-laugh c'n'p. If there's an article to write on this person, this sure isn't it. David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
2. I doubt there is. Having read the article, I've still no idea who this person is or why anyone should care. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
3. I don't see much worth keeping in the current text, and its ED origins suggest it should be terminated with extreme prejudice. RW is not a free hosting for attack pages.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
4. As above, and apostrophe abuse when mentioning the telephone. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
5. No ED copy-paste stuff please. Sophie^Wilder 21:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

   To be fair, ED was actually where much of Amitakh Stanford was rewritten from. Note rewritten, and she wouldn't have passed without actual followers - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)no

6. Since Wikipedia copies have been deleted on sight before, I don't think we should allow articles copied from any other wikis either. As I said before, I am disgusted by the thought of something copied from Encyclopaedia Dramatica. And no, we shouldn't have attack pieces on minor internet figures. Spud (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
7. Even though Madloon is wonderfully nutty and provides much mirth over on CTSTDT, I just don't think she's notable enough to warrant an article. Has she done anything besides write dribble on Facebook? Has the media ever paid any attention to her? PsyGremlin^Hable! 11:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe quinn | Result: speedy deleted

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

Delete

1. Some people on the Internet are fighting about some shit. At this point in time, I don't think that this is significant enough to be in main space, nor do I think that it may be entirely wise to add to this situation. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Wired were the eyes of a horse on a jet pilot} 06:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
2. This is really not mission related. I would also like to note that while the misogynists are disgusting Quinn has done some legitametly shady stuff in the gaming industry, especially involving something about her disrupting a charity event? Oh I don't know and don't care, though I do appreciate the creator's attempts to help out and document this I still don't think it's needed. ClothCoat (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Judy Wood | Result: Keep

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

Keep

1. She's not just a truther but a genuine nutcase who went for the gold and lost. As it happens she was on Coast to Coast AM last night for two hours. Review it and gasp. Ithaca8 (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
2. She was on Coast to Coast AM. Keep it.--TemplarJLS (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Actually pretty noteworthy as a truther - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Keep it. The pages provides insight into her.- JonCGerard (talk) 3:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Looks like a keeper from here, unless there's a dustification article somewhere (there isn't). Sophie^Wilder 08:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Seems like a loony of note. Spud (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Unneccesary article on a Truther ^{— Unsigned, by: Osaka Sun / talk / contribs}

Dan Rayner | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. RW doesn't need to boost the online profile of a "singleton with no followers" Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Who is this guy? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
3. What they said. ^{— Unsigned, by: Scream!! / talk / contribs} 15:35, 10 September 2014‎ (UTC)

   (It was Scream!! who originally said "singleton with no followers" Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC) )

   (I know that!) ^{(Oops; didn't sign! naughty me - smacked botty for that)} Scream!! (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

   Now all the others will know, too! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

4. I thought we'd decided against covering minor figures like this. Sophie^Wilder 10:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Exactly. A nobody with a couple of webshites is still a nobody, whether he's a Nazi or not. All this article does is spell out how unimportant he really is. Spud (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• On mission, not sure if notable. Well researched, but maybe a little stalky for someone so obscure? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

White House | Result: moved to shitespace

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

Delete

1. 1) Holy Shit what the fuck? 2) Do we really need an entire article about the white house that can't be covered elsewhere? Miekal 16:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Send in the Canadians. BURN. BURN. BURN. - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
3. An embarrassing example of what usually happens when RW tries to be funny - a random cluster of dated (and crap) politics jokes. I was going to suggest a redirect to Washington, D.C. street design conspiracy theory but actually no, not even that. Sophie^Wilder 19:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
4. What Sophie said. Spud (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Move to funspace (I think it's funny).--The General ^{talk to me} 17:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

   OK, that's enough justification. Moved to shitespace - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Lucis trust | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Another crap stub. We've got ourselves a resident Ed Poor. Spud (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Some publisher puts out books on conspiracy theories? So what? Articles on the authors would be better, and on the theories themselves would be best. Sophie^Wilder 10:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Why dos it matter that they publish the books?--Miekal 19:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• I'd let this one brew for a day or two. Just in case this is a new user who hasn't got the workings of the place (or a wiki) yet. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The day or two has passed, and it's just the same. Sophie^Wilder 19:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Myron Fagan | Result: Deleted

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

Keep

1. Sure the stub is crap, but this guy is well known for his red-scare tactics and Illuminati Conspiracy speech, in which the latter is repeated by Conspiracy Theorist constantly.
2. We delete stubs now? Really? Sterile (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Crap stub. Spud (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Less informative than a minimally informative article - David Gerard (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Some bloke had a conspiracy theory about the Illuminati. Or was it the Communists? Or something. Was he a big name sometime, or just another ranter? This article doesn't even bother trying to establish that. Sophie^Wilder 13:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
4. This ranks right up there (down there?) with Two Meters or whatever it was called. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• I'd let this one brew for a day or two. Just in case this is a new user who hasn't got the workings of the place (or a wiki) yet. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Strange Noises in the Sky | Result: Keep

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

Keep

1. A fairly well known piece of woo: Hufffpo, Sharon Hill, and of course the "Science has yet to identify the cause!" sensationalism of the Daily Mail. Maybe rename the article Sky noises or something. Leuders (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

   Moved it to Sky sounds. And fucked up the AfD template link in the process. Leuders (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

2. Keep - vastly improved, this is now worth keeping - David Gerard (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Needs more citations & examples, but no reason to delete. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Keep it. The article is way better than when it first started.--TemplarJLS (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. This is just shit. Spud (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
2. There's potential for something on silly explanations for unexplained noises, but probably only as passing mentions in larger articles. Sophie^Wilder 10:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

#There's a possible article, but this isn't it and it wouldn't be at this title - David Gerard (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Vastly improved, changing to keep - David Gerard (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Needs crazy amounts of extra brewing. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Not seeing why this article as it is is needed--Miekal 18:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I could have sworn I saw the subject written up by a transphobic MRA anti-GMO fundamentalist Christian on Conservapedia... Leuders (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I said as is. My statement is bascialy the same as David's--Miekal 19:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Scientificspam.net | Result: Deleted

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

Keep

1. Worth keeping IMO - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. This basically seems to be spam advertising for an anti-spam site. The fact that the editor wrote (at) to get round software which prevents giving out email addresses makes me very suspicious as to the motivation behind creating this page. Spud (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Yeah, seems kinda shet. GØØBY PLS ^{Keeping myself alive, through your EMPATHY.} 12:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
3. It's spam. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. We vote for the deletion of this article in accordance with the opinions presented by Spud, Doom Messiah and FuzzyCatPotato. We are sorry it came across that way. Best regards, RocketScientists. Oh, and about the (at): We always do that anyway, not to get around wiki software, but to avoid leaving harvestable email addresses around - leaving an email address on a public web page tends to result in the address receiving spam.

Burkina Faso | Result: deleted

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

Delete

1. stub article with nothing wikipeduia cant do for us\ Miekal 21:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
2. True. Burkina Faso isn't exactly noted for its wwoo-meisters, pseudoscience promoters, crazy preachers and general loonies. Which is not to say they don't exist, more likely they just don't have access to the internet. Nothing to see on that page. Get rid of it. Spud (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

RationalWiki:What is going on in webcomics? | Result: keep, probably

RationalWiki:What is going on in webcomics? (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. Harmless at worst, interesting at best. And there are plenty of webcomics topical for RationalWiki.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
2. I LIKE IT. Make it more accessible. --NerdyWizard (talk) ^{you believed that why?} 20:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
3. I don't see why not have this around. Sure, there's the BadWebcomicsWiki, but you never can tell when that's gonna get knocked off again, so we could at least be a back-up of a sort over here, right?Chair tater (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Barely alive page with no justification for it's existence, Why do we need a ticker on "whats goin' on in webcomic land"? Miekal 17:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Merge with WIGOBlogs. Yes, they are not blogs, but they are episodic and only periodically relevant, and the concept ("that we like") is the same. Sterile (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
3. ^This. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions?} 03:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• It isn't harming anything (e.g. clogging recent changes with fanboy slap-fights) so meh. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• No particular reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Needs moar Tim Buckley. - Bill Rawls (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• AFAIK, the established procedure for dealing with inactive WIGO pages is to stick an "archived, do not use" template on top and let them collect mothballs.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep it if we can change the name to "WIGO SMBC and xkcd." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ted Rall | Result: keep-ish

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

Keep

1. Well, like I was saying...

   I would say Rall is worthy of a page cos

   3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. 4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

   I agree the page is a really big stub at this point. I was thinking to write more after I get a few of his books in - in particular he's a good critic of how the media is controlled. But some of that stuff is still on its way by interlibrary.

   If this page goes, do we really want to keep a page for the knob who does Mallard Fillmore? ^{— Unsigned, by: MatsFan / talk / contribs} 23:58, 28 July 2014‎ (UTC)

   oopsMatsFan (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

   "otherstuffexists" is not a good reason, particularly as this page is shit and apparently a bullshit hatchet job magnet - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't giving "otherstuffexists" as a reason to keep this page; that was an aside. If a Pulitzer finalist is unworthy, then some unfunny jag is also unworthy.

I don't agree that "someone might vandalize" is a reason to delete.

I think the page should be kept and improved. You all know better than me what the standards are around here. Of course, if you delete it now, you will be deprived of my deathless prose later.MatsFan (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Significant revisions, with sources and exploration of the subject's works that isn't "he can't draw".--Madman (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC) The Madman

   Except you put back all the stuff the citations didn't check out for, and you failed to link to the examples you're referring to (that failed to show the claims you're making) - David Gerard (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly when this page first went up, I was surprised that it hadn't existed yet. I have added a little. I was picturing adding summaries of two more of his books, but I'm not going to bother til the shroud comes off. Meanwhile, revert, subvert, or pervert the page as needed.MatsFan (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Was an attempt at a hatchet job, with references that didn't actually support the claims. Once those were removed, there's no reason left for this to exist. David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Per reasons stated by Gerard above me. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
3. This article isn't on mission and serves no purpose, drown it in water. --NerdyWizard (talk) ^{you believed that why?} 10:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• In Silk Road to Ruin, he reports on the sport of buzkashi, which is like polo except with whips in place of mallets and a goat carcass in place of a ball. Oh & instead of teams: battle royal. Winner gets a new used car. ^{— Unsigned, by: MatsFan / talk / contribs} 23:57, 28 July 2014‎ (UTC)
• It's hard to view Ted Rall as anything other than a tremendous hack. But that doesn't really have anything to do with whether there should be an article. Ikanreed (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Missouri | Result: Funspace redirect

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

Delete

1. This has nothing. The fun space article has everything worth knowing. Delete and redirect. Nullahnung (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Ditto: [1] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

California | Result: Califunication

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

Keep

1. An interesting urban legend. Everybody knows there's no such place. Seriously, California has a reputation as the spiritual homeland of woo. Something missional ought to be doable here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. So short, it's almost an insult to the reader who bothered coming here. We should put whatever this has in the funspace article and leave a redirect. Nullahnung (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

deeellleettee--Miekal 22:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Chastity belt | Result: keep

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

Keep

1. Ehh, don't mind it. There's debunkable BS on the topic and we do so - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Sex woo and pseudohistory. I think it belongs here. Spud (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
3. I feel this fits with the mission cause, plus it's not too short --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not quite sure if sex joke… MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{I want you to see from behind these empty walls} 12:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Off-mission. Really, the only maybe-sorta-relevant-ish thing about this is that it has some completely unimportant myths around it- that's just trivia, and nothing else. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Impurity is the secret} 07:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Delete - this was a case of pandering to a n00b (Earthland) and then trying to clean up the mess. So off mission. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Goat

#I think if we have this article and Chastity ball, I think we should just have an article on Chastity. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. Abstinence exists. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Christopedia | Result: delete

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

Keep

1. Slightly fun to read, on mission, and it's not like we have a page limit anyway...--dx (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. While the topic itself fits the mission, the fact it was a small wiki that never got anywhere and is now dead leaves me wondering why we need to cover it either Miekal 14:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Yeah ... not really very worth saving unless someone comes up with a good reason - David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Kill it. Kill it with fire. Minor blog I had never heard of until this page, and it had almost no impact.Mongoose (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj | Result: delete

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

Goat

1. Again, I didn't nominate this, I just changed the template. I'm really a "goat" on this one too. Spud (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Not sure. Stubby, but relevant. So why didn't the nominator just do what they suggested instead of drive-by templating? - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Merge because not important enough for theiur own article outside of any context for mongolian article--Miekal 01:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Perhaps an Asian politicians page would be a better place for him. For the major Asian politicians, link back to pages on their respective nations or a full write up...Mongoose (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Not knowledgeable enough on Asian politics to have an opinion, but where is the missionality?--dx (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

TinWiki | Result: redirect

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

Delete

1. "Dead minor wiki that doesn't deserve the coverage". Miekal 14:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Delete unless someone can find a point some time soon - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Merge and redirect with Above Top Secret--dx (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Agree with the above. Spud (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Fun:Experimental control | Result: no consensus

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

Keep

1. It's the experimental control for the Experimental control article. Sophie^Wilder 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 9deep11me --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'm a survivor, keep on survivin', I'm gonna survive this, I'm gonna make it} 15:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Not that funny, and doesn't seem to be satirizing anything Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
2. As funny as the Vietnam War. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{But if I don't use the mayonnaise then how will her legs grow back?} 15:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Funspace is also shitespace, but this would be no loss - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack Parsons | Result: keep

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

Keep

1. I haven't read the article, so I can't speak as to its quality, but I'm familiar with the subject, and he definitely had some crank ideas. Also, he had ties to Aleister Crowley and to L. Ron Hubbard pre-Scientology. In fact, he was even scammed by Hubbard, and tried to summon a hurricane as revenge...--"Shut up, Brx." 12:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Not a very good or readable article at the moment, but fairly obviously missional. See the Wikipedia article on Jack Parsons (rocket engineer).. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Crappy, but I'd say keep - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
4. It needs serious reworking; like sources and shorter sentences, but a valid article never the less. It's particularly given how many occultists associated with him have articles on RatWiki. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

   Carry on, then— I've changed my opinion from "delete" to "goat." After all, the man did notably invent the JATO bottle. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

5. Oh, let's keep him, he sounds fun! I'm definitely reading the works cited. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. I'm not really the one that nominated it this time. I just replaced the old delete template with the new one. I'm more in the goat category on this one. Spud (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Would definitely be on-mission if he were around today... but he isn't. While's a well-known name within (history of) occultism - itself a much lower-profile subculture than it was - he's just "who?" outside it. Sophie^Wilder 13:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

   Wait, so if somebody dies, we should delete their article? I don't understand--"Shut up, Brx." 16:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

   No, it means that a minor figure died before the internet was even invented isn't really worth our attention. Are you being an idiot on purpose? If so, sod off back to ED. If not, sod off anyway. Sophie^Wilder 21:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

3. Anecdotal, poorly explained & poorly cited. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
4. I'm sure theres a mission for this, but unless somebody else is gonna write it i don't see it being worth an article--Miekal 19:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Goat

How much of what the article says is factual? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Yes it's OR; but you also know that's the most logical explanation and you will never find a source connecting all the dots. I trust you.)" would lead me to think it isn't.--Miekal 21:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hence why I asked. Some of the folks posting on this page said they're familiar with the subject matter. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

(Changed my mind from "delete" to "goat" 00:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)) The style is tough to read, asking too much of the reader's willingness to believe what is asserted in sentences elongated with participial phrases, for which I confess some fondness. Better burn it to the ground, leaving the opportunity for a fresh start, in case someone should ever want to spend effort writing a RW article on this peripheral figure, who was perhaps an example of engineer woo. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Maryland | Result: funspace

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

Keep

1. All other states have an article. Why not keep it, at least as a mainspace launch page to the funspace article? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 16:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

   A redirect from the mainspace fulfills that function as well without doubling as a worthlessly short article. The US states category is a right mess. Some articles are US state articles and aren't listed in there, some states like Kentucky only have a funspace article and their mainspace is just a redirect to said funspace. Some states have just one sentence as an article which is really not worth having, while having all the worthwhile stuff stashed away in their funspace counterpart, might as well have been a redirect instead. Some articles do not have funspace counterparts, but are written with much the same style and breadth of content as the funspace articles of other states. The category is pretty inconsistent anyways.

   This is mostly an attempt to have the stubby articles gone, at least (they are not even marked as stubs, thereby indicating that we're not planning to expand them to a worthwhile state). I would settle for marking articles with potential as stubs for further expansion, but only if there is interest. Nullahnung (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

   Yeah, the US states cat sucks. Why not improve it instead of killing bad articles?

   For MD, the funspace has plenty of non-fun material that could be moved back. Why not do that and {{stub}} it? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. What is in here that couldn't be in the fun article instead? Nullahnung (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Changed my mind. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 04:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Maine | Result: funspace

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

Delete

1. So short it's an insult to whoever bothered coming here. Redirect to fun space. Nullahnung (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Ditto: [2] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Connecticut | Result: funspace

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

Delete

1. This is one line of text. One line! Move whatever this has to funspace. Nullahnung (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
2. RationalWiki doesn't exist to cover every topic. Unless there is room for this to expand it should be deleted --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Med Israel For Fred | Result: keep

Med Israel For Fred (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. Because they are a major wingnut organization by Norwegian standards (over 7,000 members[3]) and are in the media all the time these days, in relation to their extremely pro-Israeli ultra right and anti-Muslim stance, and as one of the largest Christian fundamentalist organizations in Norway, whose leaders believe Israel should invade its neighbouring countries in preparation for doomsday and because God said so. Millicent (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Obviously missional - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Blatant wingnuttery is missional. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{They were trying to combine themselves to form some sort of molestation Voltron} 16:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Why are they important enough they need an article Miekal 16:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Fold into Conrad Myrland? Beef it up in place? It's not enough as is, but it could be another non-Ugandan example of US-style fundamentalism polluting the world. Or not ... MarmotHead (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

   That it's exiosted for a year leaves little hope it's gonna be anything but a stub or redirect to another stub--Miekal 16:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

   I hear you, but it's morning here and my caffeine must be laced with optimism. MarmotHead (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Rabbit's foot | Result: keep

Rabbit's foot (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. Obviously missional, an actually cliched superstition - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
2. (Started the article). Yes, this is starting out based on Wikipedia -- I thought we were allowed, and at any rate, it's based on an older version of the Wikipedia article; apparently no one's been interested enough to turn it to the usual sludge over there. The subject itself seems fairly obviously missional. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 03:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Obvious keep. An effort needs to be made to differentiate it from the Wikipedia article it's based on, but it's clearly a topic we should have an article on. --Marlow (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
4. I can't judge the plagiarism bits, but reading the article wins me over. MarmotHead (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Plagiarized from Wikipedia; also some issues with content (US-centric), which could be fixed, I suppose... Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Killing bunnies for their feet is wrong! *Mean face* Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Don't copy anything word-for-word from Wikipedia. Ever. Not current versions of articles. Not old versions of articles. Not deleted articles. Not stuff from people's sandboxes that they never made into completed articles. Nothing. Smerdis, if you haven't already, rewrite all the bits you plagiarized in your own words. Then, I'd support keeping it. Spud (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

   Not deleted articles. Dead wrong there. We have some lovely articles which are rescues from Wikipedia deletia. Your proposed rules are made-up and ill-considered - David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

   Wikipedia is licensed with Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License; in particular, 'Attribution' is missing, and RW is CC-BY-SA, which may mean that 'Share Alike' is also breached? Or perhaps I misunderstood something? I don't mind 'copying' things from anywhere, copying is good. But that is not the same thing as 'plagiarized' content... Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

   Spud is talking made-up BS - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Steven Pinker | Result: Keep

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

Keep

1. I realize that left-creationists don't like this guy or his message, while I am a fan. I also know it's infallibly defined doctrine here that evolved instincts neither ever affect human behavior nor set limits to the shape of human societies. I didn't come here to start that argument, again. User:Osaka Sun did. Even assuming that his teaching is heretical, though, I, uh.... didn't know that being wrong about stuff disqualified him from being a subject of a RationalWiki article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Being wrong about stuff is a keep reason, not a delete reason. Edit the article - David Gerard (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
3. He seems alright. Could use some more padding if there's stuff he's wrong about though. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Come on, this guy is one of the most important figures in the modern scientific world. Just because one editor doesn't like his views doesn't detract from this. Cloud Yeller (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Well I wouldn't go that far, but he is a good cautionary tale about forgetting that a mathematical model is no better than its underlying assumptions. Keep.MatsFan (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
6. The article needs work but is keep-worthy. NerdyWizard^{you believed that why?} 10:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
7. The article should be repurposed to encompass his accomplishments, as well as criticisms of some of his hypotheses. For example, Ben A. Barres, a trans male neuroscientist, has argued against the claims of Pinker (and several other psychologists) that the dearth of women in many scientific fields is at least partially due to innate cognitive gender differences. This is not covered on his Wikipedia page, but I still think it is significant.

Delete

1. "It's time to recognize that this guy is a pop psychologist and wrong about many things. http://bit.ly/W5jyFz. ". Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC) This was the rationale supplied by User:Osaka Sun.

Goat

1. I think we're a bit stuck here. If we wanted to include a criticisms section, I think it would be outside of RW's ken. Criticizing his views of things like computational theory of mind or linguistics is better left for an academic journal. However, the farther afield he gets from his area of expertise, the more nonsense he produces. (See Better Angels of Our Nature.) This could provide some fodder. On the other hand, if we leave this to the academic journals, we'll be left with a little stubby article not really worth keeping. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that the criticism he deserves mostly constitutes legitimate scientific discussion, rather than a conventional crank-takedown? MarmotHead (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't understand why anyone would think the article should be a "crank takedown." There are a ton of Serious(TM) commentaries on Pinker's work in academic journals. Now, some of his pop stuff is a different story; Better Angels being a prime example. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad bin aly | Result: Deleted

Muhammad bin aly (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. What is this? GØØBY PLS ^{Be judged by your suicidal desire} 05:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Poorly-written junk. Even if it's mission-worthy, we are better off starting over. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
3. This page may be the result of a mind-altering drug. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Utter crap. I'd block the editor, who took 8 edits to come up with that pile of shite, if I could get away with it. Spud (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Burn it and salt the earth.TallMan (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
6. Hasn't it gone yet? How many votes do we need? Cloud Yeller (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• Spelling and all, I'd probably have suggested "keep" if it had had anything like cites - David Gerard (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• When it can be shown to be relevant to the RW:MISSION with well-vetted sources, this article might be revived. For now, I'll fire up a torch for this snowball. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Cremation | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Off-mission stub Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Cremation stopped being controversial over a hundred years ago. Casionaut (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Burn it. MarmotHead (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Fire it into the sun! Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Easter Bunny | Result: Keep

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

Keep

1. Does no harm, and it's not like we're a paper encyclopedia with a limited number of pages. Maybe add a line about bells flying from Roma delivering the eggs in catholic countries like France instead of a rabbit (not that it makes more sense). I think the link with pagan traditions, showing the cafeteria that are most Christian traditions, is on mission.--dx (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
2. The current text sucks. Will see if I can come up with aught for it. I've seen the "eggs and rabbits are secretly pagan" line before, and it smells faintly of nineteenth century amateur folkishness. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)-- Comment. I have amended the article somewhat. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Oh come on, the Easter bunny and Santa Clause are like most peoples' first exposure to skepticism. Ikanreed (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
4. This was crap before but, now that Smerdis of Tion has edited it, it's informative, entertaining and mission-worthy enough in my opinion. Spud (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
5. It's a pretty good article in my opinion. --Theoneandonlyduncan^{Send me hate mail} 22:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So, that's 5 votes for keep, 3 deletes and no goats. I say it stays. It's very different now from when it was nominated for deletion. You might argue about its missionality but you can no longer say it's utter shit. If you still think it should be deleted, start the process again. Spud (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. There is nothing of relevance in this article that is not covered (in better quality) elsewhere. GØØBY PLS ^{Be judged by your suicidal desire} 14:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
2. I think I have actually shat a better Easter Bunny article than that - David Gerard (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
3. If the Great Pumpkin doesn't get it's own page, the Easter Bunny shouldn't either. MarmotHead (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Icelandic | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia. There is nothing really mission worthy about this article. There probably is some language woo attached to Icelandic but it's not explored here. Anyway, who cares? Spud (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
2. This article is as doomed as the Icelandic language. (but seriously, there's no mission appropriateness here) Ikanreed (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
3. eyða Cloud Yeller (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Deutsch ist Besser. --Miekal 15:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
5. I can't think of anything that might make this missional apart from its use in runic magic and Norse neopaganism, and even there its use makes sense. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
6. One of those things that I find very interesting but have to agree that there's no Mission Compliance whatsoever. (sadface)

Goat

• Icelandic saga is a thing. In universities around the Great Lakes (of North America) one could study it for credit hours. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I Fucking Love Science | Result: Inconclusive

I Fucking Love Science (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. Its clickbait garbage that deserves a good RationalWiki thrashing NerdyWizard^{you believed that why?} 09:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Seems to have gotten a lot of upvotes on the suggestion page, I don't see how it's not wanted. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 11:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
3. It and its author are getting out to further than FB. A wanted article, even if the current version isn't the greatest - David Gerard (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Is much-improved - David Gerard (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
4. I'm pretty sure it's on mission here, plenty of room for catching misinformation, from what I've seen of them Ikanreed (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Beyond being a popular facebook page/website that posts about science stuff and is slowly going the way of every other facebook group, i don't see this ever being a article we need to coverMiekal 02:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
2. In one year, will anyone care that this Facebook page existed? Probably not. AugustusCaesar (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Meh, it's just some trendy clickbait Facebook page. Not worth our time, especially since a good amount of what they post is just trendy garbage. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Yeah. "So what?" is what I say too. Do we need a page on every tupenny ha'penny website that's got some connection to science/religion/politics? And it's another fucking stub. If you've got nothing to write about something, don't bloddy bother! Spud (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Rap News | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. There is absolutely no reason that this article should exist. AugustusCaesar (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
2. I certainly got the impression that this was something of a fan page, in which someone chronicles the hilariousness a couple of nobodys nobbing about in an obscure corner of YouTube and on a channel nobody watches (well, not for that segment anyway). Who cares? Not me for a start. Spud (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Why does this even a page on RW?--Theoneandonlyduncan^{Send me hate mail} 22:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. I must say, its raison d'etre escapes me also, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Homelessness | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. This article has only the initial edit from almost a month and a half ago, the article creator has not yet returned to it, and without major additions I can't see the point of keeping the article. Blasphemist (Speak) 08:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
2. I can't even think what would usefully go here - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Kill it with fire. AugustusCaesar (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
4. "Homelessness is a state in which a person lacks access to a permanent dwelling." That's what we're losing if we delete this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Really? One sentence on a non-mission article? DELETE DELETE DELETE! --Theoneandonlyduncan^{Send me hate mail} 22:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Truth.origin | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Wrong Site name TemplarJLS (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Since the person that's created this page about a website now says that there is no such website and wants the page deleted, I don't think there's anything to discuss. Spud (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Cockney Bible | Result: Merged

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

Delete

1. Doesn't seem particularly missional beyond being about religion.Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 00:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. That translation of the Lord's Prayer into Cockney reads like it was written for Dick Van Dyke's character in Mary Poppins. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. This article is about a silly little book. A novelty. A stocking-filler. Not something intended to be taken seriously by anybody. It's really not our kind of thing at all and only really serves as a spam promotional for that book. Spud (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Would probably be kewl in funspace. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{I am complete} 00:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Redirect to Guide_to_Bible_translations#Fringe.2C_crank.2C_and_joke_translations - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have added a bit about this silly little book and other ones like it to that section and redirected the page there. Spud (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The Nine Unknown

The Nine Unknown (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs)

Keep

1. Other than briefly being mentioned in books like the Illuminatis trilogy and morning of the magicians, the most fame the book has recieved is being mentioned in an interview with as being an inspiration for the show Heroes. My rational in making this was that The Report From Iron Mountain has an article. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

   Iron Mountain has people who believe it's actually real. I asked for evidence anyone thinks that of this and you had nothing - David Gerard (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Not a conspiracy anyone believes in, but just an article about an obscure story about a conspiracy. Asked for "so what?" on the talk page, no details - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Might as well have an article on the Individual Eleven for all this one is worth. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Yeah. There are other wikis where you can wank on about science fiction and fantasy stories that nobody's ever heard of. Spud (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
4. ^--Miekal 03:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Red Pill | Result: deleted

The Red Pill (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs)

This is a poorly-written stub and unless we can add sources to where this has been used in the ways this article asserts, it's not even something that can be backed by sources and is not even anything worth keeping. Reddit is a fun site, but unless it is used elsewhere, I think creating articles about internet insanity that is limited to one social media website is a silly idea. I'd re-direct the article to Kool-Aid drinker, because I not only have seen this comparison argument used before, I've also seen it used outside of the gender-issues sphere in a similar fashion to the old meme "Drinking the Kool-aid." Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Delete it or redirect it per my post at the top of the page. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Anyway, don't we already have a glossary or something for terms like this used around the MRA-verse? What purpose does an entire article on this serve? DØØM MĖSSIÅH ^{Unite with thy oracle} 08:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Delete. Using the metaphor is not limited to the manosphere, the CT subculture got there first as soon as The Matrix went out. --ZooGuard (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Redirect the term somewhere useful - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Manosphere glossary already covers it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• (Note that I've voted for deletion in its current incarnation) This would be a viable article if instead it was about /r/theredpill (which now has only a subsection in Reddit) and related sub-reddits, such as RedPillWomen (or whatever it's called).--ZooGuard (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. And of course, this means that it should be under a different title. Though the name of the subreddit will be a problem because of the slashes.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• "Red pill" and "blue pill" are covered in basic detail within the manosphere glossary. There may be scope for a longer (non-stub) article on these terms, but until someone feels like writing that, I suggest redirecting both "red pill" and "blue pill" (without "the" which is redundant) to the manosphere glossary page. /r/theredpill is covered within the Reddit and Manosphere articles; I don't think we need whole articles about subreddits. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Flying Carpet Fallacy | Result: deleted and restored

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

Keep

1. Possibly under another title. It's actually a phenomenon that's well worth our while documenting and is not too bad an article, my only qualm is the name. Should check it's here with permission of the author to make it a CC-by-sa wiki article - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. It's largely copied from this blog post, which when I googled "flying carpet fallacy" was one of only two results I got that contained the term. Spud (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Peremptory deletion seems like a reasonable course. Leave to re-present also seems reasonable. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
3. It's been axed. Obviously not our work, we shouldn't bother keeping it. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Has been revived, after the copyright problem's been sorted out, and is being improved - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Dynamiclear | Result: Keep

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

Keep

1. It's a pretty good article. From the article, this company/product actually seems to be one of the better ones in the industry, which is cool to see. ^{— Unsigned, by: MarmotHead / talk / contribs}
2. Appears to be an attempted whitewash. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Well-written and on-mission. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{The neural network broke the phase space!? REVERSE THE TANGENT GRAPH!!!} 02:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Everything said by those above. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
5. +π. Being more butthurt than I am about the nuclear or GMO articles doesn't warrant a delete. Rationalwiki is here to challenge you, deal with it, and/or discuss changes (with refs) on the talk page.--dx (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
6. I too am butthurt by a number of articles. This, at least, is rich in information and explanation, which is likely the only reason why it's here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Ha. No - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
8. I'm marking this discussion closed. The consensus seems solid here and I know of no other criteria. The delete template appears to have been used here as a kind of way to insert information into the article that it contained "False and Unreliable Information". I have taken a brief look at the studies, and in the abstract you are comparing two topical creams. according to http://www.webmd.com/genital-herpes/guide/genital-herpes-treatment-options "Formulas applied to the surface of the skin provide little benefit, and doctors don't usually recommend them." You are free to elaborate your case and I am open to the possibility Dynamiclear holds true benefits for sufferers of if not herpes some kind of skin condition. But to my inexpert eyes there is a major problem with your study. You are comparing your unproven medicine not against nothing but against another topical cream. a brief search does show that Aciclovir(the other cream), is effective against herpes but evidence is weak for use as a cream(it is available in pill form). One study posted on two different websites without a control group is not all that convincing to me. I really hope I'm not being some kind of pissed off idiot here, let me know it this doesn't make sense outside the confines of my own skull. --NonPerson (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Article has been up for deletion for over a year, is this going to occur any time soon? Dynamiclear^Talk 01:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Please note that we intentionally posted with our company account so there is transparency.
   • Dynamiclear is not a woo product, it has been peer reviewed and published: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270204 and http://jddonline.com/articles/dermatology/S1545961612P0209X/1 --Dynamiclear^Talk 03:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Goat

The delete tag was changed to "update" in early 2013, and the article stood that way until today, when User:Dynamiclear changed it back to "delete." It seems inaccurate to say the "article has been up for deletion for over a year". Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Accepted. Would like the article to be considered again for deletion. --Dynamiclear^Talk 03:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. You have tagged it according to the way things are now done, and discussion is proceeding. I have no strong feelings one way or another about it, hence our conversation here under the "Goat" rubric. The talk page of the article itself is a good place to lay out the specifics of the "false and unreliable information" that need to be addressed. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Libertarian skepticism | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. This article was created after the same material was removed from the page on Libertarianism. Also, if we allow stublings like this, the real Ed Poor might start editing here. Spud (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Two meters - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

   Unless anyone comes up with more than a single-liner with reference to a passing mention, of course - 11:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

3. If the mob thinks this material is worth keeping, then Libertarianism is the place for it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
   • Seconded (what does that article even means to convey?)--dx (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Edstub. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Two meters is 6 feet, 6 3/4 inches. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{A single piece of bread is just an open-face universe sandwich} 14:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Libertapedia | Result: delete

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

Delete

1. "Beyond being "a wiki for libertarians!" and documenting Tisane doing stuff, why do we need this?". Miekal 14:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
2. STAB STAB STAB - David Gerard (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Apparently, the site is gone and is now a redirect to the Libertarian Party website. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Was a vanity page he created any way, only survived cos his antics provided entertainment. - π 06:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Television | Result: delete

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

Keep

1. well, I saykeep, but I mean rewrite from scratch - an article about television, its political abuse and social effects would do nicely. And we should have that dog that could say "sausages." Sophie^Wilder 21:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

   That's what I meant by "delete without prejudice". You volunteering to fix? - David Gerard (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. The article is not at all serious or informative. While I can see some mission potential (TV woo, usage in media), I don't think that this is really majorly significant, and it's all pretty much covered elsewhere. However, I think it would also be fine to fun-space it if that's what flies. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER ^{Deserved doom shall be unto you} 10:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Junk article. Why did it stay in mainspace this long? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
3. It's not 2007 any more. Delete without prejudice - David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Another from the "bad Wikipedia article" pile (it's a big pile). Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Could be a hub article directing towards more on-mission articles like Fox News. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{So you see, we have to kill animals, or else they'll die.} 15:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
2. I'm old enough to remember some of the eccentric 1960s - early 1980s debates about television before the ubiquity of cable and the rise of the Internet. The "great wasteland", "violence on TV", and many other moral panics or attempted moral panics. Television was supposed to be turning children into thugs, turning brains into jello, and enforcing a limited corporate world view. Do we have Marshall McLuhan or Neil Postman? There's a fair amount of older woo about TV and its alleged social impacts and evils that might be missional. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen | Result: Expressly deleted

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

Delete

1. There should be more to this wiki than just calling famous people names because they happen to have said something stupid at one point. Anyway, who does pay attention to Charlie sheen anymore? Spud (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
2. I would apply the snowball clause to it this minute, but the author thinks I have it in for him, so somebody else can do the honors. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Off-mission, could possibly cross into libel territory. Am gonna delete now. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER ^Cermeneserm! 13:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Iron Chariots | Result: Merge

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

Delete

1. A stub article on a skeptics wiki that doesn't ever seem to get any headway in being known doesn't really seem that important to cover Miekal 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge

1. Merge. Since it's run by the guys behind The Atheist Experience, why not just subsection it and throw in a redirect?
2. Merge and redirect is a great idea - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Agreed. Merge it. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Another agreement.--dx (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
5. I say the same thing. Spud (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Walkoflife7 | Result: Deleted

Walkoflife7 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. Edit to Truthislife7. Got the name wrong. Sorry for that. The link to this guy is in the vlogroll for creationists and fundies--TemplarJLS (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

   Link. Recent videos have < 1k views, most popular video was 88k three years ago and has nothing to do with creationism. The other videos above 10k seem to be re-uploads of third-party material. Currently 904 subscribers, 515k views for newrly 4 years. The last video was uploaded 7 months ago.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Doesn't seem to exist -- a youtube search turns up no videos for this user. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
2. No evidence found in a Google search either - David Gerard (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Yeah. I can't find any results for him. There are enough genuine weirdos out there. We don't need fan-fiction pages about ones that don't exist. Spud (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
4. (added after the reveal) Unless this somehow produces an amazing article, I don't see the point in having another stub for a 'Tuber creationist. The channel seems to be obscure and presently inactive.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Good point. Go ahead and delete this. Didn't notice he isn't active anymore. Good riddance to him.--TemplarJLS (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Teabagging | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Because Weaseloid Said so! --Zero (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Lol joke about sex--Miekal 18:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Made redundant by Tea Party Movement. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Created solely to make a snarky joke about the newborn Tea Party, it serves no purpose now. Sophie^Wilder 18:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
5. What Sophie said! --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Advocate for the liberation of Willzyx} 22:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
6. mertge it with the Tea Party page then? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Ate a goat milk yogurt for breakfast. That was good. Oh, and you USians decide what you do with that purely USian article...--dx (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

World peace | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. This is still a bit crappy, and I'm not sure exactly what we can say on the subject that's even remotely interesting. There's a lot of irrelevant whiny stuff on communism, and that's it. Not even a Miss World joke in there. ^{Don't click here} 11:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Not only crappy, but also implies a shitty attitude. Nullahnung (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
3. This was never good. Delete without prejudice - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Another one from our seemingly endless pile of crappy Wikipedia articles. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Why not have a shitty attitude? No one will fix this article, and we really don't need to -most crank ideas include world peace as an end result. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Short and boring. Kill.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Goat

There's still a whole bunch of pages linking to it. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Got rid of most of the links, can't find the rest. \m/ESSIAH 12:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Freedom | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Basically the same as the just deleted Resistance page. It consists of just a few short quotes. While somewhat amusing I don't think it meets rational wiki's criteria. *shrug* NonPerson (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
2. ^This. Although there are currently about 50 page that link to it. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

   That may be why someone bothered writing it - David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

   That's why I wrote it. --Theoneandonlyduncan^{Send me hate mail} 18:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

3. Not as good as a red link would be - David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
4. We all know what freedom is. I can scarcely imagine having much to say about it. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Delete as bourgeoisie pseudosociology. On a more serious note, it could possibly be a missional article, but it's unacceptable in its current state. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{The devil found it objectionable, so he banished it to Dollarama} 04:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

   Please improve it. --Theoneandonlyduncan^{Send me hate mail} 18:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

6. Better as red link. Making it a missional article will be a huge job, best saved for an epoch of inspiration on the part of an experienced RW editor. RIght now, I'm not feeling it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. If Freedom isn't Liberty, then just write/improve the damn article already :/ . On the other hand, if we can merge that with liberty.... [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo War | Result: delete

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

Delete

1. I find history fascinating, and have edited some history articles here, but I've come around to the idea that they are largely unnecessary. I recommend we pick out what's useful for Josip Broz Tito and delete this. TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
2. There's little missiony here - Tito did this, Misosevic did that, and the rest is just ethnic and military history. Sophie^Wilder 13:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Gatewood Galbraith | Result: delete

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

Delete

1. He was a kook, alright. But no substantial changes have been made to this article since it was tagged for significance to the mission TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Perennial candidates should be justifiable, but someone has to bother adding it to the article - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Resistance | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Bunch of quotes Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Pointless. AugustusCaesar (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
3. There's probably a decent RW article in this, but as it stands, Resistance is useless! Sophie^Wilder 10:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Delete. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Delete-a-roony-doony. \m/ESSIAH 12:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Talk page notes it's sucked since it was started - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
7. What's the point of this? --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{̸̴͟͟H҉̴̶͘͝a̛͜͠͏͏t̷̛͢e̷̴͘҉.͟͠ ̶͜L̨͢͝ę͘͢t͘҉̢ ̵҉͢͝͝m̵̧̛͜é̢̛͝ ͏͝͏̢͟t͏̕͞e̶̛͘͘͞l̶̛͜͠͝l̵̕͠͞͝ ͏͏y̕ǫ̸̶́͠u͜͞҉́ ̴h̴̀̕͠͠o͠҉́ẃ̶̶͘͢ ̨̢m̴̢͢u̷͠ć̕͏h̵̶̴̕͘ ҉͘I̴̢̧'̶̴v̨́͏e̶̸͟ ́͟͏̧c̵̸̨͘o̸̕m̴͜͡e̢̧̡͟ ̵̧́t̢͟ò̷ ͜h͏̷á̵͘͏͝t̷͢e̢̛̕ ̸̢̛ý̢̧͜͝ó̢́̕u̵̸͞ ̡̨͜͜͝ş̶́͝͡i̵̡n̴̵̛̛͠c̴̸͘é҉̸̛͡ ̴̀I̸҉̢̢͠ ͏͞b̵̶̧̀͠e̸̢͟͠g̢̧̀á̸͞n̴̵̡͟͏ ͘͏̕͝t҉̡̛͞ò̴ ̵̀ĺ́̕į̸̕̕v̸̨̨ȩ́͢҉̶.̛͢͝ ̵̧̢} 15:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
8. Delete, or create a companion stub at multimeter. Preferably, delete before some sexist adds the mnemonic for the rainbow resistor color code. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sangha | Result: Redirected to Buddhism

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

Delete

1. Stub, don't need to have an article on every religion-related thing Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
2. RW is not an encyclopedia. This is worth a sentence in Buddhism at best. Sophie^Wilder 10:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Not relevant to the Mission. Although it may be worth it to copy it over to buddhism. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{All you need is some monkey magic, and all will be alright} 15:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
4. RW is not a dictionary. The term is already mentioned enough in the Buddhism article. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Redirect to Buddhism, copying the two lines over if you feel like it - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Motō Kimura | Result: redirected

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

Delete

1. Stub, and neutral theory probably covers it Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
2. If all the article can say is that he developed neutral theory, then just a redirect will do. Sophie^Wilder 10:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Just redirect to Neutral theory - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Men who have sex with men | Result: redirected

Men who have sex with men (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. 4-sentence stub that could be incorporated into some other article Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Indeed, merge with something useful. Even the resulting applications of using this term is best discussed elsewhere. ^{Don't click here} 07:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
3. redirect to Homosexuality, with a sentence there about non-homosexual identifying men who have sex with other non-homosexual identifying men. Sophie^Wilder 10:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Delete. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Redirect per Sophie - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Merging is fine but please don't delete this information; it's important and relevant to legitimate safety concerns. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 20:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

New Statesman | Result: delete

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

Delete

1. Short stub not related to the mission Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
2. It's a left-of-centre news/comment magazine. And? Sophie^Wilder 10:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Ehh. Could be missional, isn't - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

MemeShock | Result: Delete

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

Keep

1. It's on-mission and it's a very interesting read. Discovering information about obscure cranks is half the fun of browsing RationalWiki. There's no reason to delete the article. --Yukabacera (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. I propose we delete our article on MemeShock. This is not because it is not mission-worthy but, rather, because we are likely giving them more credit than they are due and draw waaaaay more attention from Google than the group itself does. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Largely irrelevant, inactive group. What RNS says. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER ^{Keeping myself alive, through your EMPATHY.} 10:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Who are these people? Zero (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
4. If it's still open for a hat to be thrown in I'd actually agree with the deletion reason. They may have been relevant a while back but keeping the article is just necessary posterity. ^{Don't click here} 11:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Delete it - mostly defunct and yes, we're drawing attention to them. JRock1203 15:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Delete it. Not just because it's mostly defunct, but because it's not influential in any corner of the internet. I had never even heard of them until reading this article, and I think it would be wise not to give them more attention than they deserve. Wykked Wytch (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Somewhere between "ehh" and "so what". I'm not convinced it's worse than no page at all - I'm not sure people like this go away - but am open to persuasion. It could be unfortunate for the otherwise-innocent Minecraft video maker who chose that as their name - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Just another gang of fools pretending they're clever. Merge with Proll or list on the Clogroll. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Conservapedia:The Conservapedia mystery | Result: Delete

Conservapedia:The Conservapedia mystery (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Get in a time machine, go back to 2007 and create this article. May be then somebody would care. Now this is totally and utterly pointless. Spud (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Too tiny to be worth itself. Zero (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
3. How did this fail to die in the previous fire? - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
4. It's a weed growing out of the ashes. the author say's he'll do more, but is there any point? Sophie^Wilder 14:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
5. It's only getting worse. Take it out back and shoot it. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Exile it to its creator's user space. Maybe it grows into a nice history. Maybe it becomes Rick Santorum's creepy stillborn child. Maybe. MarmotHead (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Become Jehovah's Friend | Result: ?

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Become Jehovah's Friend

Become Jehovah's Friend (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Crappy article of... questionable use, which mostly seems to be plugging a youtube video Mikal | lakiM 19:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Speedy delete along with any of Micky's other useless Ed Poor style one-line stubs. He's had enough feedback about this already & I don't think it's worth going through the AfD rigmarole every time he creates another of these worthless pages. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Tengriism | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. This is partly a bad copy of wikipedia:Tengriism, with numbers that lead to references on Wikipedia but do sod all here. More to the point, we don't need articles on every religion in existence. As long as they're not trying to get creationism or geocentrism taught in schools or trying to make big piles of cash out of their woo, who gives a damn about what a few people in Central Asia believe? Spud (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
2. I'd give it the chop. It's too poorly done to be considered a mainspace starter. Zero (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Delete without prejudice - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
4. A blandly informative article with no reason to exist on RationalWiki. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Trying to read that made me sleepy, so I don't know. But at the very least needs goat AND removal of the unlinked references. dx (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
2. I think articles on just about any religion are on-mission, so I don't think an article on Tengriism is a bad idea in general. The article as is is horrible, though. Improvement might be better than deletion, but I don't know if that can be done. Octo8 (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
3. There may well be something RWish here. Are there links with nationalism and racism, perhaps? That seems to be a nasty undercurrent with many revived religions. Sophie^Wilder 09:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to think so, hints of reconnecting with a pre-Islam greater past, but I know fuck all about central Asia, so could not hope to improve this article even with its help.--dx (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Going once... Sophie^Wilder 21:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Forever 21 | Result: Merged into Corporate Christianity

Forever 21 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. As part of this category, article is useful in showing how a narrow and often hypocritical take on Christianty is expressed in American corporate culture. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
2. "Y is for Yummy" in a God-vertizing store? It makes me smile. MarmotHead (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. I'm not kidding when I say that it's so pointless that it can't see the mission with the Hubble telescope. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan!} 17:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
2. I saw this on recent changes, and can't be mustered to care about keeping it. Ikanreed (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
3. This is destined to be a short, pointless, isolated article. It will make no observations beyond the obvious and unoriginal "it's hypocritical", and never go into any depth on the subject. This is basically on-par with a random blogger's short rant post. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
4. See my comment on the burger thing. \m/ESSIAH 22:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• Create a Corporate Christianity article and merge this minor example into it. Sophie^Wilder 17:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• I do support the creation of a corporate Christianity article, and I think Forever 21 would be worth a brief mention in such an article. But not as a stand-alone article. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge in the now-created Corporate Christianity article--dx (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge into Corporate Christianity - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge into Corporate Christianity per above arguments --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Group (mathematics) | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. No relation to mission. 67.149.173.242 (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
2. As fond as I am of the topic, I fail to see how this article does us any good. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Was originally one of the maths articles from Conservapedia. Not very relevant, no, we have Wikipedia. Edit: Actually, I prefer Smerdis' reason - David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Once upon a time people wrote mathematics articles to show Ed Poor how it could be done. What was a fairly futile (and self-congratulatory) exercise then is pretty damn pointless now. Sophie^Wilder 12:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Fuck all to do with anything else here. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Kyubey stares into your soul. /人◕‿‿◕人\\} 13:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Set theory is witchcraft, and an abomination to the LORD. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Purge the Wikipedia within us. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
8. But it's math. therefore rational. therefore the foundation of this wiki. (or...something). By the way, didn't this issue get addressed years ago? I blatantly remember the line "it was to show Ed poor how it can be done", but the date here is from this year.One tin soldier (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Something Awful | Result: delete

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

Delete

1. Fuck all to do with RW's mission. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
2. One little tangential paragraph of touching on relevant topics placed at the very end does not magically grant missionality to the whole thing. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

   Some similar articles start with a few sentences and such a paragraph, then someone expands the non-missional part, because that's the only way they can contribute. Science-related article are prone to this.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

   Strict moderation and getting rid of shit users leading to a healthy and on-topic community should be part of RWs meta discussion but isn't the meat of an RW article. But who cares when the mission is whatever people with opinions say it is. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

3. "Some of it is quite good" doesn't really cut it. Sophie^Wilder 09:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Even that paragraph at the end has fuck all to do with the Gospel according to Trent RW mission. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{̸̴͟͟H҉̴̶͘͝a̛͜͠͏͏t̷̛͢e̷̴͘҉.͟͠ ̶͜L̨͢͝ę͘͢t͘҉̢ ̵҉͢͝͝m̵̧̛͜é̢̛͝ ͏͝͏̢͟t͏̕͞e̶̛͘͘͞l̶̛͜͠͝l̵̕͠͞͝ ͏͏y̕ǫ̸̶́͠u͜͞҉́ ̴h̴̀̕͠͠o͠҉́ẃ̶̶͘͢ ̨̢m̴̢͢u̷͠ć̕͏h̵̶̴̕͘ ҉͘I̴̢̧'̶̴v̨́͏e̶̸͟ ́͟͏̧c̵̸̨͘o̸̕m̴͜͡e̢̧̡͟ ̵̧́t̢͟ò̷ ͜h͏̷á̵͘͏͝t̷͢e̢̛̕ ̸̢̛ý̢̧͜͝ó̢́̕u̵̸͞ ̡̨͜͜͝ş̶́͝͡i̵̡n̴̵̛̛͠c̴̸͘é҉̸̛͡ ̴̀I̸҉̢̢͠ ͏͞b̵̶̧̀͠e̸̢͟͠g̢̧̀á̸͞n̴̵̡͟͏ ͘͏̕͝t҉̡̛͞ò̴ ̵̀ĺ́̕į̸̕̕v̸̨̨ȩ́͢҉̶.̛͢͝ ̵̧̢} 15:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Has a certain "yes, but so what?" quality - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Delete everything but gender and history articles. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Instantdegrees.com | Result: Redirect to diploma mill

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

Delete

1. The point of this article seems to be pointing out a scam, one which has nothing to do with pseudo-science, religion, conspiracy theories, right-wing loons or anything else that's our bread and butter. There must be other wikis where you can create articles warning people about scams like this. Spud (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• Redirect to diploma mill, with perhaps a brief mention as an example if someone missiony got their degree there. Otherwise, as said above, we're not a consumer advice website and we don't have to cover particular instances of a general problem. Sophie^Wilder 05:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• Missional, but not very interesting in itself; would do well as part of Diploma mill - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Seconded dx (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thirded. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Never got enough hugs as a kid} 21:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda Platoon | Result: Entire set of articles deleted

AfDs for this article:

Chickenhawk/NHG/Propaganda Platoon (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Because NerdyWizard said so! Zero (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
2. While im sure back in 2007 this was a good article and had its uses, i can't think of a single use of it of late and its title alone makes finding it difficult.--Miekal 18:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
3. No idea what's this about. It seems to be some kind of list of some random fundies. So: ^wow _{much bizarre} so pointless ^{plz delete} --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{It's like human misery in video game form} 19:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
4. RW's 14 pages of New Hampshire Gazette material are an ancient pet project by Human. They never really belonged on RW even in 2007/2008 — their entire raison d'etre being "Human got permission from his local paper to use their articles, so by gum, are they going on the wiki". Delete the lot. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Goat

Some kind of pet project of Human's. Userfy. Sophie^Wilder 18:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

François Hollande | Result: delete

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

Keep

1. As I said on the talk page:

Can we at least wait for him being a former president before deleting? While we can't have articles on every politician, he's still the president of one of the UN security council countries.--dx (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 0n the other hand, I'd agree this page reads like crap. A rewrite might be in order when I'll find the time. (The debate between "it's their private life" and "he's the president, we have to inform the public" over his recent affair might be good fodder for the private life part, and switching from good/bad for his policies (from which POV?) to done/still-waiting might be better.)--dx (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

--dx (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Because Osaka Sun said so! Zero (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Although he's an important current politician, I don't see the point of this. He's gone out of his way to be boring and non-controversial, the attempted 75% tax rate excepted (and that's just a tax rate that affects hardly anyone). In the spirit of The Truman protocol, we don't need articles on every politician, unless they're missiony. Sophie^Wilder 18:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
3. The article is just WfG's projection of her delusions of what France is. Nothing of value would be lost by its deletion, and as it is it's an embarassment--"Shut up, Brx." 18:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Toss another one in the "crappy Wikipedia article" bin. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Unless the article addresses his godawful taste in spectacles, or his unintentionally hilarious use of Kanye West's Niggas in Paris in his campaign, this article should be burned with holy water. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Maaaayyyybeeee you'll think of me when you are all alone} 19:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. While he could probably be worth an article of some sort, as it stands the article isn't really worth it and i don't think he himself has done enough to justify an article at the moment.--Miekal 18:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Brxbrx needs to get over their grudge against WaitingforGodot. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber | Result: Redirected to 2008_U.S._Presidential_Election#Joe_the_Plumber

Joe the Plumber (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Proposed for deletion by WhateverHisCurrentNameIs with the old template. Reason given was: "Marginal figure from the past, had no real impact then, has less now." Before pruning, the article looked like this and suffered from the recent attention of Proxima Centauri.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Even Wikipedia is not... bureaucratic enough to decide article deletion by numbered vote count, or obsessive enough to split the count into sections.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. The SimpleName-the-BlueCollarJob meme was fun, but only for the first several months. Here's a stake, there's a heart ... MarmotHead (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
2. If he had actually been something besides 15 minutes of fame maybe, but otherwise hes just "guy who supported the republicans"--Miekal 17:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Let the poor guy get on with his life, without having to deal with the millions and millions of people who are reminded of him daily by reading our article on him. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. The crank ideas about the economy he put forward and the media's treatment of him will make a nice subsection to the 2008 US Presidential Election article. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
   • ^This --dx (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
     • ^That. Sophie^Wilder 09:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
       • Done.

In-N-Out Burger | Result: Merged to Corporate Christianity

In-N-Out Burger (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. As a redirect to a relevant section in the Corporate Christianity article. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
2. ^ Ideally this, although that article could do with a makeover. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Merge before deleting corporate Christianity and everything but gender issues. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. This one doesn't even have the 'hypocrisy' angle Forever 21 had, this one is just "lol religious quotes". What the fuck is this, /r/atheism? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{̸̴͟͟H҉̴̶͘͝a̛͜͠͏͏t̷̛͢e̷̴͘҉.͟͠ ̶͜L̨͢͝ę͘͢t͘҉̢ ̵҉͢͝͝m̵̧̛͜é̢̛͝ ͏͝͏̢͟t͏̕͞e̶̛͘͘͞l̶̛͜͠͝l̵̕͠͞͝ ͏͏y̕ǫ̸̶́͠u͜͞҉́ ̴h̴̀̕͠͠o͠҉́ẃ̶̶͘͢ ̨̢m̴̢͢u̷͠ć̕͏h̵̶̴̕͘ ҉͘I̴̢̧'̶̴v̨́͏e̶̸͟ ́͟͏̧c̵̸̨͘o̸̕m̴͜͡e̢̧̡͟ ̵̧́t̢͟ò̷ ͜h͏̷á̵͘͏͝t̷͢e̢̛̕ ̸̢̛ý̢̧͜͝ó̢́̕u̵̸͞ ̡̨͜͜͝ş̶́͝͡i̵̡n̴̵̛̛͠c̴̸͘é҉̸̛͡ ̴̀I̸҉̢̢͠ ͏͞b̵̶̧̀͠e̸̢͟͠g̢̧̀á̸͞n̴̵̡͟͏ ͘͏̕͝t҉̡̛͞ò̴ ̵̀ĺ́̕į̸̕̕v̸̨̨ȩ́͢҉̶.̛͢͝ ̵̧̢} 21:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

   Pretty stupid question considering you act like a 14 year old on /r/everything. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

2. They quote the bible on their packaging- who really gives a shit? They're not homophobic, or relevant outside a couple of US states, so why do we need an article on them? What does this add to the wiki? \m/ESSIAH 22:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Great burgers, bad article. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Unless we're now recording every instance of "THEY WERE CHRISTIAN IN PUBLIC SO THEY'RE FUNDIES AND MONSTERS AND ARGH!!!" like some twat bag 17-year-old who just discovered Richard Dawkins, delete. ^{Don't click here} 12:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
5. zOMG, they're Christians!!!--"Shut up, Brx." 15:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. The fact that they just add bible quotes without any sign of homophoby or other offensive Christian marker might make them a good exemple to refer to on the Corporate Christianity page.--dx (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Merge to Corporate Christianity - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Merge sounds good to me. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 17:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Merge with corporate Christianity. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
5. I'd have to agree that just because they're owned by Christians doesn't make them evil. Merge. Spud (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
6. What David said. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{i mustn't run away i mustn't run away i mustn't run away} 15:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Woolston-Steen Theological Seminary | Result: delete

Woolston-Steen Theological Seminary (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. Wicca being passed off as a legit basis for a post-secondary education? How is that not germane to the mission? Improve/expand the article, and if one suburban goth kid changes her mind about given them her money, we've done our job here. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
   • That's something I could get on board with, if you could extend how this passes off as legit education (might be some cultural barrier here, from my point of view, it just looks like a flyer distributed outside my yoga lesson). With a link from the main wicca article.--dx (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. The article is very bare, could use some improvement but it makes me wonder if it qualifies as helpful. Zero (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Unless it's more than what it seems (garden-variety religious mumbo-jumbo), I don't see any reason to keep it. MarmotHead (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
3. I don't see how a course listing like that brings more than just looking at their website, unless it's a very stealthy snark--dx (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
4. This article is the unholy trifecta of off-mission, short and pointless. Kill with with fire, extreme prejudice and extremely prejudiced fire. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{i mustn't run away i mustn't run away i mustn't run away} 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
5. "Who cares"--Miekal 01:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. I can't see this being expanded much, or even at all, unless someone sends off for materials, and even then it'd just be standard Wiccan stuff. Merge with Wicca. Sophie^Wilder 15:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Undue attention? Is this wikipedia? Ikanreed (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
3. I'm not sure whether to keep this or not, perhaps we should research and see if there's more information accessible that we can add. At most we should merge, we certainly shouldn't delete. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
4. There's gotta be a story here - David Gerard (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Victor Atiyeh | Result: Delete

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

Delete

1. We shouldn't have an article about someone just because he was the first Arab-American state governor just as we shouldn't have an article about the Titanic just because it's the most famous ship in history. A very brief description of Victor Atiyeh belongs as a footnote on the Bhagwan Sree Rajneesh page, if anywhere at all. Spud (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Yeah, merge - David Gerard (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Agree with merger. Sophie^Wilder 11:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Yeah. Article feels rather off mission honestly. Zero (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
5. Delete. If the coup plot can be verified it would be more appropriate as a note in the article on Rajneesh. So far I haven't been able to find anything confirming it, though, nor do I recall ever hearing about it in news reports at the time. (I'll admit that my research has been fairly limited.) Godless11B's gonna die the way he lived. 17:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
6. I agree that this should be merged with Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. --Castaigne (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
7. I couldn't find anything verifying the coup plot so vaped without merge. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 22:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Block booking | Result: Delete

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

Delete

1. Off-Mission Zero (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
2. A slightly underhand sales tactic. So? Sophie^Wilder 11:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
3. I'm with Weaseloid; delete the bulk, merge the parts on Fox to that article. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 06:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
4. I agree with Weaseloid and Wehpudicabok, regretfully. Interesting information, but not currently relevant. --Castaigne (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• ehh - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Not linked from anywhere or very relevant to the missions. The content about Newscorp/Fox could maybe be moved to the Rupert Murdoch or Fox News article. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Eukaryote | Result: Inconclusive

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

Keep

1. Eukaryotes are a pretty top-level grouping of organisms. It's not like we talk about a single species here. And I do think we should have articles on that level of lifeforms, because some biological background information is necessary to fight off creationist idiocy. Octo8 (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
   • Not sure it's managing that, though - this is basically Wikipedia-except-not-as-good - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. I've never minded having strictly educational material hosted here solely for the purpose of educating the reader, particularly if said subject is directly related to some anti-science being fought. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
   • Unfortunately, looking at "What Links Here", it doesn't seem to relate to anything, but it could. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. per the talk page, this belongs in reference:space, or a different wiki. Sophie^Wilder 09:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
3. This is a job for {{Template:Wpl}}. (And the use of offsite links should be encouraged for background information if it isn't something we can do better here.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Falconist Party | Result: Inconclusive

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

Keep

1. Blatantly missional - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Second the missionality. --Castaigne (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Take it or leave it. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
2. If we do have a notability guideline, this would fail any conceivable version. The top generic Google search hits are all their own vanity sites. Then come this article, and a bunch of posts on random message boards that seem to be from its promoters calling attention to the new movement. Just some kooks with a website AFAICS. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Pet Goat | Result: Inconclusive

The Pet Goat (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. It's about a goat for chrissakes. Leuders (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Merge into somewhere 9/11ish - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Goat. Probably nominated by a jerboaist. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Merge into George W. Bush. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 06:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

   Frederick has THE RIGHT ANSWER! - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sex toys | Result: Inconclusive

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

Keep

1. Blatantly missional. The Alabama stuff looks imbalanced at present, but this is clearly about sex toys and not about Alabama. There are other examples, I'm sure - David Gerard (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Just because some prudes banned something in this state this one time is not worth an entire article. Maybe mention it in Alabama, but this does not deserve its own article. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{A sea on earth is a sea of tears} 13:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. This article is fucking pointless. It has literally no relevance to the wiki. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Impurity is the secret} 05:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Might be worth a mention in Alabama. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Or rename it Sex toys in Alabama. Leuders (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Universal Life Church | Result: Kept

Universal Life Church (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. I see the deletion notice disappeared. Bad nomination - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Both the church and the article about it do a good job of demonstrating how ridiculously arbitrary conventional definitions of the word "religion" are. That in and of itself is worth keeping, not to mention issues with tax evasion. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Keep. Known about them since the 1970s at least. (I bought my D.D. sheepskin from a similar outfit, the Church of Universal Truth, at the Kentucky State Fair in 1977, when I was still in high school.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
4. Patently missional. Besides, I may want to refer to this article should I ever want to be styled Rev. Cogswell in my golden years. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Inverse stopped clock | Result: Kept

Inverse stopped clock (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. Eh, seems pretty legit. I've seen it used in other forums than here. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Useful as a reminder that nobody is always wrong about everything. Sophie^Wilder 09:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Useful to keep, on-mission, and even Einstein fathered illegitimate children and attempted to hide it. Neil deGrasse Tyson has to have some dirt somewhere...--NerdyWizard^{you believed that why?} 09:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Yeah, pretty shit neologism - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
3. All this article is saying is that sometimes reasonable people can be wrong... whoop-de-doo. Nullahnung (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Some good here and some bad. I would rather see the bad stuff cut and the good stuff merged into the main stopped clock article, honestly. They are similar enough that we could discuss them both together. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Glynn Harrison | Result: Kept

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

Keep

1. Blatantly missional - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. People of power who have irrational views should have an article. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Agree 100% with both of you above me. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Guyana | Result: Vaporized

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

Keep

1. We've other geographical articles, most of which are interesting/funny. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Agreed, if we vanquish this why not vanquish all countries related articles? - Bill Rawls (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

   We've deleted country articles before, because there was nothing to say about them. See Talk:Sao Tome & Principe. I think the ideas that we should have articles on every country, or none at all, is a false equivalence of a sort. If we can write a RWish article on a country, create the article. If not, don't. Sophie^Wilder 14:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. No better than a Wikipedia article. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 06:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Someone we have an article on went there. So? Sophie^Wilder 09:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
4. We honestly shouldn't have articles on other countries unless we have something to say about them that relates to the mission. This does not appear to be the case with Guyana. If this triggers the deletion of other off-mission country articles, so be it. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
5. What Wehpudicabok said. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Carbon Dating | Result: Vaporized

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

Delete

1. Shameless Self Promotion Zero (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. It's linked at WIGO Webcomics, which seems enough. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Why not just delete the whole wiki while you're at it? I didn't realize this was for a web comic. RW has become a dumping ground for too much non-mission nonsense just because it's some editor's pet issue or interest. 22:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
4. Some BoN drove by and posted a thing about a new webcomic. Apparently it has some stuff about pseudoscience. (reads a few) and it's not even especially interesting. Sophie^Wilder 08:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Seems appropriate per the mission, but the self-promo is off-putting. Perhaps a subsection of something else? Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
2. ehhhh *waves hand in air* - David Gerard (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
3. #REDIRECT [[radiometric dating]] ^talk 20:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

   Are you thinking of Carbon dating (the radiometric age measurement method), or Carbon Dating (the webcomic)? This page is about the webcomic. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

   On that note, if we do keep the page on the comic, we should probably move it to "Carbon Dating (webcomic)" to prevent just this sort of confusion. Capitalization doesn't really disambiguate in the typical reader's eye. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

   Sorry, webcomic fanboys, the webcomic page shouldn't exist at all. ^talk 22:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

4. Change title as above. (nothing inherently wrong with self promotion if it's worth it) Scream!! (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Jerboa

• Sheesh. Have any of you guys actually looked at the webcomic? Pretty uniformly four panels of two talking heads saying mildly interesting things. Occasional buzzwords tangentially related to the mission, with pseudoscience debunkery only in homeopathic doses. I'm not even sure it deserves to be included in WIGO webcomix. Any fanboys here on RW? This is the place to out yourselves. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sistani Nomination & Peace Award-2014 | Result: Vaporized

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Sistani Nomination & Peace Award-2014

Sistani Nomination & Peace Award-2014 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. I think considering the core aspects of authoritarianism and fundamentalism, it is best for Rational Wiki to give place to every group/unit of mankind irrespective of cast/race and religion or region. Article not only maintains the purpose of the RW rationally but also covers a hot topic. Nannadeem (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Off-Mission, far too long. Zero (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Yeah. I think it belongs on Muslimwiki, not here. Spud (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Gets my vote Placeholder (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
4. Though I have the King of Norway on my speed dial, this site seems an unlikely place to lobby the Nobel peace prize committee. Do we even have an article on Ayatollah Sistani? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
5. Zap - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
6. Very poorly written; it's difficult for me to understand what the point even is. This guy got a Nobel nomination and it was controversial, I guess? Why exactly was it controversial? Islamophobia? Or has he just said/done stupid things? Perhaps the author should work on revising it as a user subpage and then, when it's clearer, republish. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
7. Off-mission: reads like a lobby press-release, not a rationalwiki article. Could be on mission summarized inside a Ayatollah Sistani article with the proper amount of snark, but cannot stay in mainspace like that. --dx (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
8. Off-mission: what the hell is the point of this article? --NerdyWizard^{you believed that why?} 09:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Catch-22 | Result: Kept

Catch-22 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. Blatantly on-mission - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Keeper. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Keep. Refugee (talk) Refugee^{talk page} 05:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
4. See above. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 06:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Catcher in the Rye | Result: Kept

The Catcher in the Rye (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. Censorship and use in Conspiracy Theory makes it missional - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Fully on mission. Can perhaps even be expanded based on its on-missionness. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Keep. Refugee (talk) Refugee^{talk page} 05:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Clitoris | Result: Vaporized

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

Keep

1. Personally, I don't mind the idea to have some articles around to annoy the all too conservative. Octo8 (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. Meh, we got over trolling CP years ago. Sophie^Wilder 09:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Nah. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
3. I don't see how this could ever be on mission. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 06:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
4. Another article from the days when we wrote sex articles to show up those uptight Conservapedians. Sophie^Wilder 09:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
5. Boring.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 19:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. Needs saving, not killing - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Experimental control | Result: Kept

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

Keep

1. Wat. Blatantly on-mission - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. How and when was this article brought to AfD? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
4. --Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 19:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• Fun:Experimental control, on the other hand...--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 19:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nineteen Eighty-Four | Result: Overwhelmingly Kept

Nineteen Eighty-Four (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. One of those books that's invoked more often than it seems to have been read. A perennial trope in discussions of authoritarianism, and on mission as a result. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Any article on the book that gave us "doublethink" (which is painfully on mission) is better than a "doubleplusungood" written article on it. No deletion. Octo8 (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Whoever nominated this should feel bad - David Gerard (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
4. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
5. Keep. Refugee (talk) Refugee^{talk page} 05:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
6. Snow keep. Sophie^Wilder 09:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
7. How the fuck is this even nominated? MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{A sea on earth is a sea of tears} 05:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Nyhetsspeilet | Result: Kept

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

Keep

1. Blatantly missional, stupid nomination - David Gerard (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Could use more info, if so, keep. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
3. "We don't really do Norwegian" is a terrible reason for nominating. Yes, we do actually cover stuff from small, non-Anglophone countries. Sophie^Wilder 09:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The South | Result: Kept

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

Keep

1. Keep, per the IP on the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Obvious keeper. Sophie^Wilder 09:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Speed limits | Result: Vaporized

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

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Another article founded on the notion that somebody's political position is unquestionable truth. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Ixnay. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Goat

1. The article has gone through many iterations in its short history. In its current form, Smerdis is probably right about it. But if we could make it only about denialism of the fact that speed limits do lead to fewer traffic deaths (that's just an observation from countless studies, not a political point in itself), it would probably fit. However, that would require a complete rewrite, so whatever. Might keep it, might as well delete it. Octo8 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Steal This Book | Result: Vaporized

Steal This Book (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. System Transfer Zero (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Possibly missional, but this article is rubbish - David Gerard (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
4. Rip it up and start again. Sophie^Wilder 09:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Fun:Sudden Bullshit Syndrome | Result: Vaporized

Fun:Sudden Bullshit Syndrome (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Reason Zero (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Hard to go wrong with "Actual fun missing in fun subpage". Ikanreed (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
3. STAB STAB STAB - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
4. I googled again, and it still looks as much like a forced meme as it did last summer. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
5. Adios, amigo. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)