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

December 2016[edit]

Politics and Science in the Bush Administration | Result: Deleted[edit]

Politics and Science in the Bush Administration – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Hasn't grown from a listicle in 11 years. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 01:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This thing isn't going to grow. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Lionel (radio personality) | Result: Deleted[edit]

Lionel (radio personality) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

There is not much if anything missional here. If you think this character is missional, you should explain why and remove all the crap. We are not a dumping ground for WP articles that lack notability. Bongolian (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
There's no need to discuss this. If you think somebody deserves a RationalWiki article, create a RationalWiki article. Do not copypaste a Wikipedia article full of red links, broken templates and red categories. Spud (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Van Badham | Result: delete[edit]

Van Badham – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Drive-by hit piece by IP. This is worse than having no article at all. David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The BoN hasn't worked on it. If said BoN returns with an improved version, s/he is free to recreate it (and then we'll consider that version separately). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Spud (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 03:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Stanley Green | Result: Avenged[edit]

Stanley Green – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

No substance. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 (talk • stalk) 01:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Worthy topic, worthless article - David Gerard (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Expand don't delete! Worzelpete (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Doing the expanding would be 100% more convincing an argument - David Gerard (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Doug Stanhope | Result: Avenged[edit]

Doug Stanhope – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

No substance.
—HamburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 01:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
And the little content that's there makes me ask, "So what?" Spud (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Expand don't delete! Worzelpete (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you expand it? You created it. Spud (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I like him too much to do the typical RW shitting on anybody not exactly on line with our politics. He is a bit nutty on some fields, but so what. And I don't think his substance abuse is an act. Worzelpete (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Is there anything to this guy except the stuff that's been mentioned in the article already? Any outside news sources? Anything that isn't just youtube? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Reductio ad Lincolnum | Result: assassinated[edit]

Reductio ad Lincolnum – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Does there really need to be a page for a nonexistant term?—(((CheeseburgerFace))) (talk • stalk) 01:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree, particularly since it's an internal RW nonce. Bongolian (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC) I have no problem with it being a section in Godwin's Law. Bongolian (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete, of no utility - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This isn't a vanity wiki. Making up a phrase and then creating an article about it which says, "This was invented by RationalWiki User X" is not our thing. Spud (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, we're expressly about making stuff up on the spot. That being said however, this thing is far from deserving of its own article (if deserving of a mention at all). See Merge/Redirect section below. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that RW is not about "making stuff up on the spot", as you say RBP. The text you cite is about synthesis of research or possibly ideas, not about making up phrases that no one uses. Admittedly, it is true that the GOP does erroneously refer to Lincoln as their ideological forebear often enough but what if anything do people call this behavior? There is already some discussion of this on the Lincoln page. Bongolian (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Put it in Godwin's Law. It's a useful counterexample. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Merging somewhere sounds like a good idea. Lincoln does get brought up a lot. Especially when it comes to Neo-Confederalism and racism. Worzelpete (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Add to List of eponymous laws/similar fitting article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Zionism | Result: Kept[edit]

Zionism – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This articulo is an embarrassment for this wiki Worzelpete (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Article is fine. Apparently everyone else is in the goat category. Applesauce (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The article is bad and was written with an agenda. Frankly, people get much better (and more balanced) information on this subject on Wikipedia. Zionism should only concern us insofar as it is used as a dog whistle by anti-semites Worzelpete (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Sigh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Is this article really that bad? It seems fine. Some of the writing is a bit clumsy, especially the section about Zionist terrorism, but it seems generally well researched. MVHVTMV (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
1. Worzel is probably another Avenger et al sock, TBQF. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. Are we just going to claim that anyone we don't like is a past troll?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 (talk • stalk) 22:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    1. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might be a platypus, but ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 (talk • stalk) 22:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Biofeedback | Result: Redirected[edit]

Biofeedback – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

It's not clear that this is woo, and the current article is mostly a poorly-cited WP copypasta. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 19:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
It's very short, outsourced and unclear. The article doesn't even specifies if it actually works or not? Rational1 (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Shred it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

November 2016[edit]

Glenn Greenwald | Result: Keep[edit]

Glenn Greenwald – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Why do we have this articulo? Worzelpete (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I think there is little wrong with this article. Applesauce (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Glenn is very important. Keep! AnonASP (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Definitely keep. B) talk 04:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Why? —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara (talk • stalk) 04:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Seems missional, but could use a rewrite. I'm sympathetic to both arguments. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence is awkward and is a run-on sentence which is awkwardly phrased and is in fact an English teacher's nightmare, which also may give me nightmares, which is a fact you may not care about but which has prompted me to decide to rewrite it. Heh. In all seriousness, it seems a well-referenced article on an important topic. But I am going to work on rewriting and rephrasing it. Feel free to help. B) talk 05:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Bad sources | Result: Deleted[edit]

Category:Bad sources – (View AfD)

So, is this permitted to be deleted? We do have 7/7 votes for delete.--WMS (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Go for it!

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty, thank you :).--WMS (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Basically, this category has not been used for quite a while now so it seems pointless to still have it. I don't think we have to outright delete this page, I think we could add som form of a criteria for what is applicable for the 'Bad sources' category. If a criteria can't be set, this category is ultimately futile.--WMS (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Roast it. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
For reasons outlined when it was first proposed. NB you'll also need to delete Template:Badsource & remove the template &/or category from any pages where they appear (see 'what links here' links). Wẽãšẽĩõĩď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Empty category that was the result of Plutoniumboss's template spam, if I recall correctly.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 22:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fake news renders this page obsolete. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

French politicians | Result: Deleted[edit]

French politicians – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This should indeed be a category and not a page unto itself. Spud (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
In fact, it's already a category.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Bongolian (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Oui Oui!-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 19:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Should be a category. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Replace with this Annquin (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
French genetic cleavage dot org? Now we're talking! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Fun:Zionism | Result: Userspaced[edit]

Fun:Zionism – (View AfD)

Poorly written, badly sourced, and not funny, all according to the creator of the page.

Delete[edit]

As stated above. Also pushes an agenda that Zionism isn't so bad by mocking people who oppose it. Applesauce (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
If you think I am making fun of honest anti-Zionists and people undeserving of mockery, please point out where any such statement is made. Worzelpete (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Concur with all of the above sentiments. Please write good fun articles. I'd love to see a version of this with good sources of crazy anti-Zionists behind every one of the claims. That would make it even more funny. Also, please could someone take me out of the vandal-bin? I haven't done anything bad and it's really annoying only being able to edit every 30 minutes and having to type in a stupid code every 30 minutes. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
1. Given your history ... um, no. I'm not going to get involved in and/or be associated with your nonsense. I recommend taking it to your talk page so this topic isn't derailed.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 (talk • stalk) 04:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Concur. This article is not fun despite its namespace. Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Both unnecessary and unfunny; appears to have been made by a sock of a resident concern troll.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This page is poorly written and distasteful. AnonASP (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Be funny and not just stupid. This reads like something from the bottom of the barrel at Uncyclopedia or the top of the barrel at ED. There could conceivably be a good article at this title, but no part of this will be it. - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Subject is worth an article, but this should be moved to userspace until it's rewritten. Dark humor is fine, but it's awfully short and reads like it was written quickly and to fill space rather than as a quality article. B) talk 04:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Fun articles = good. This != fun.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Meh, it's not great, but it could just as well use some work as a deletion. Also, let's all remember that a successful "delete" verdict is not a prohibition on re-making the article in a funnier way. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I invite those who criticise the article to come and help make it funnier. I think it is funny in a dark humor kind of way, but humor is subjective. It certainly was not my intent (as some have insinuated) to insult or criticise anti-Zionists, except for those "anti-Zionists" who really believe in a global Jewish conspiracy controlling the world. Worzelpete (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I did my bit above to vote for the greatest improvement that I thought could be made for it - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Given my recent edits, many of the issues that people are voting on are outdated now.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 (talk • stalk) 23:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
DiamondDisc1|1csiDdnomaiD (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
nope, still poop - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
This user asserts the fact that the purpose of the fun namespace is to house humor articles, including but not limited to ones which are based on the law of poe. the article performs mockery of the front that is for the stated ideology.FAMAS (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Before anybody deletes it, please move it to my userspace and/or notify me so I can do it myself, thanks. Worzelpete (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Deep web secrets | Result: Merge[edit]

Deep web secrets – (View AfD)

Merge nomination (see below for details) by —CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 20:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

This should be merged with the Deep Web article because the two basically cover the same content. See the discussion on the talkpage for more details. —CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 20:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it's more than a little odd (and redundant) to have articles on both the deep web and deep web secrets, so they should be merged. It also looks as if the former could use a cleanup whereas the latter, insofar as it deals with myths/conspiracy theories, could be fitted into the section on darknet myths and exaggerations. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Sí.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This. Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

These articles are both pretty long. They also serve as FAQs for the community I run at /r/deepweb/. If they were merged together the chances of people reading them would be significantly reduced. The 2x article format increases their utility as a debunking resource. Additionally, this is a rehash of a previous discussion which was left unconcluded. This is a prime example of the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion being ignored IMO. Deku-shrub (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain what the difference between the content of the two articles is, succinctly? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
One is focused on the terminology, the other is focused on specific myths associated with it. Deku-shrub (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
We aren't wikipedia. —CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 21:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Irrelevant. If you disagree with my point and want to argue that polling is in fact superior to discussion, make the argument Deku-shrub (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Polling is common place in rationalwiki to create decisions that are ruled by popular decisions. We make decisions all the time the chicken coop with polling to decide to ban a user, deop sysops, and delete an article; these are all ruled by popularity. If you disagree with polling, you are clearly on the wrong website because rationalwiki is completely different culture than wikipedia and is based on polling. —CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 21:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
So, Deku-shrub, why does RW need two long articles on both terminology and myths? It would seem to me that the latter is the relevant bit and the former can easily be paired down and rolled into it, serving only to provide explanations necessary for the understanding of the myths. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Because the article serves as an FAQ for a subreddit as Deku-shrub explains above. I have argued in the past that RW articles should be made for RW not a subreddit. —CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk) 22:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cheeseburger, I prefer Deku-shrub to argue for himself/herself/whatever and I asked exactly because I found the Reddit answer irrelevant not only because RW isn't guided by what some Reddit group needs, but because if they use it as a quick ref for debunking, it would make even more sense to focus on the myths and put in only the terminology necessary for dealing with them. And Cheeseburger, please don't move these posts out of chronological order, it makes it a hassle to find the latest comment and follow the flow of the discussion. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I have discussed this with Deku-shrub extensively so please excuse me; the explanation I discussed is the only one I have been given by him, I apologize. In addition, for future reference, should all talk pages be arranged in chronological order? —CheeseburgerPlate (talk • stalk)
It's quite okay, Cheeseburger, I wasn't exactly laser precise in my first post about whom, I was addressing, so I apologise if my response to you was a bit brusque. As a general rule, talk pages are organised chronologically (I had to get used to that myself too), but long and/or meandering threads can be split off into their own (sub)sections to make the whole thing more manageable and navigable via the table of contents. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I have never said that the articles cannot be merged, simply that it's my preference that they not be merged. I've put a year of research into this article and it's dependent references (most of which are also created by me) all as a part of my mission to educate people about the dark web, separating fact from fiction. Utilitarianism drives everything, and to that end I believe the large amount of issues communicated in the articles are more likely to be read at approximately the length and format they are now rather than one large article. These resources are entirely unique on the internet and exist to serve a certain market I have also studied extensively. Allow the articles to serve this purpose. Deku-shrub (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Since the deep web secrets article contains a total of no more than 14 references and most entries simply link to other existing RW articles without further content in the deep web secrets article itself, then perhaps a condensed version as a subsection of the deep web article in conjunction with a deep web secrets category would be more useful? As it stands, deep web secrets look more like a telephone directory to me. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Possibly, this should be moved to the Duplicate articles category instead? Unless we're actually going for a major chop job on one of the articles it sounds more like a merger proposal and elimination of superfluous material to me. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"Please use this page to highlight any examples you find of duplicate articles or other pages which you believe should be merged'. Yes, I apologize. —CheeseburgerPlate

(talk • stalk) 22:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No need to apologise and no worries, Cheeseburger. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Deep web could do with more participants too - David Gerard (talk)

Race | Result: the combined vote here and the talkpage is 8-3 for deletion or merging of useful content; there is no useful content, so.[edit]

Race – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

We already voted 5-2 to delete this (or merge anything salvageable; there was nothing salvageable. Since Weaseloid derides this as "a couple of user's say-so", AFD. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 20:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
It makes no sense to declare biological race the hate fantasy that it is in the racialism article, while in the next breath leaving an entry named "race" standing. The whole race concept belongs under "racialism" (the pseudoscience) and "racism" (our perceptions and culture) respectively. An actual "race" article becomes oxymoronical in this context, and for good reason. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Race is not purely a biological concept, nor has it ever been. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
*ding* That's correct, now for the lightening round! Being socially constructed is a far-cry from non-existent. This would be like deleting the pornography article because you can't really scientifically define the concept. It's silly. There are plenty of people who draw arbitrary and unnecessary distinctions between "races" on non-scientific boundaries, including, but not limited to: skin color, national origin, religion, and language. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ikanreed: Will you vote accordingly? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm still making up my mind about some of the other arguments presented on either side. Hopefully I don't just forget entirely though. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
One source for an article of this length, on this subject, looks like an Essay. Makes the whole project look preachy and unscientific, i.e., bad. Either source it, scrap it, or move to Essay. nobs 02:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Weasel I've said several times that my argument is not that race is "purely a biological concept" (race isn't even a biological concept at all, but I digest). Race perception is notably socially constructed (and is a product of racism). All I'm saying is, what's the point of keeping an article that literally categorizes people by racist labels? Have you looked at the single-sourced not-even-bronze article in question? Why does it say, for instance: "Caucasian is a classification term for describing a race of humans that are not black, Asian, Native American, or Pacific Islander.". That is actually racialism! Who wrote this thing, Mikemikev? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Barack Obama is never referred to as "white", regardless if its the female that carries the bloodline, and his mother is white. Someone? Anybody?Roo (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Huh? Wėąṣėḷőįď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
All mitrochondrial DNA is passed from mother to offspring without recombination (unchanged), meaning if you want to trace Mr. Obama's lineage, he's white right from the get go. The bloodline is mitochondrial DNA. Patriarchal bloodlines are social constructs.Roo (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
What about Y chromosomes, though? Worzelpete (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
What does any of that have to do with this AfD discussion? Wēāŝēīōīď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The article, as it stands, seems to be unsure about the point it wants to make. It really needs to be either entirely re-written from a single coherent standpoint or eliminated.--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

The article could do with improvement but this is a much broader subject than racialism & very much relevant to the site missions. Wéáśéĺóíď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
That's fair. I accept that. But right now, the article doesn't add anything. It's got 1 source. Read through it as if you're the average person, with a very limited exposure to scientific literature about race, and who usually sees race portrayed as ethnicity or skin color. Has your perspective changed? Have you learned anything? In my opinion, no. It would be better to eliminate the current content and start over than to repurpose what currently exists -- basically a combination of all the shitty uninformative articles we had on individual races, merged. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Worzelpete (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the ~~essay~~ article in question has one source. :/ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I vote keep. Applesauce (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

The lack of sources is a clear problem. We could expand the sources by discussing the sociological aspect of race as well as briefly tying it up with our radicalism article.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree — in fact, my suggestion was that we do that in the Racism (perceptions/culture/oppression) and Racialism (pseudobiology) articles, respectively. That would eliminate the need for an actual article on race, considering we don't recognize the pseudoscientific race concept. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz | Result: Keep[edit]

Alan Dershowitz – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Delete Worzelpete (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Seems well sourced and relevant enough. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
No reason has been given for why this should be deleted. Just writing "Delete" isn't a very persuasive argument. So I'm voting "Keep" for now. Spud (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
💠💿☝️ (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

October 2016[edit]

Solstice | Result: Turned into a redirect.[edit]

Solstice – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This article is about telling the reader that there is a pagan holiday in December and then lists rituals related to the holidays. I don't see an analysis here. —(((CheeseburgerFace))) (talk • stalk) 16:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC) 16:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Not mission-related Tuxer (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
It is highly missional. We even have a paganism nav! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Content isn't even good enough to merge. Just axe it. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

True. The content is utter crap. I'm turning this into a redirect to Christmas#Pagan elements. That's all it deserves to be. Spud (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

The only relevance I can see is how the (winter) solstice influenced the date of Christmas, into which article it could easily be merged. Bicycle^wheel 17:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Spud (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
It could also be merged straight into the paganism article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Merge into the paganism article. PB (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Merge this mother SolPyre (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Tony O'Connell | Result: Kept[edit]

Tony O'Connell – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not missional. Tony O'Connell is a collector of Atlantis theories, yet he himself is quite reasonable. So: False accusations. Same scheme of article creation as we had it recently with the article "Thorwald C. Franke". --Wonderworld (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Connell is a crank. His website shows he supports the bizarre "expanding earth" theory and crazy Afrocentric pre-Columbian theories, the list goes on. He also holds fringe views about Atlantis. The sources for the expanding earth and "negroid" Olmecs is already on his page.HamiticRenaissance (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Seems pretty missional to me... SolPyre (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Nope, O'Connell clearly doesn't simply collect crankery but actively promotes it as the links to his website already in the article document. For instance, O'Connell doesn't even pretend to challenge Clyde Winters' Afrocentric nonsense but merely laments that Winters "fails to convincingly link this with Plato’s Atlantis." The same problem exists in O'Connell's discussion of the (failed) expanding Earth hypothesis in which he ends up with this passage: "Finally, I cannot help thinking about those Victorians who thought that they had reached the pinnacle of scientific understanding. They were wrong and, I believe, that so are we, although we are slowly, very slowly, edging towards the truth." Contrast this... charitable... treatment with how O'Connel wraps up his extremely terse entry on Michael Shermer: "I consider as fatuous, his comment that “Plato’s Atlantean dialogues are essentially an ancient Greek version of Star Wars.”" By contrast, not a single critical remark accompanies O'Connell's treatment of the extremely ancient Sphinx nonsense of Robert Schoch and others. The nominater clearly has the wrong end of the stick here as it is extremely easy to rustle up more examples similar to the ones already mentioned, e.g. O'Connell's fawning entry on the hyperdifusionist website Migration & Diffusion and its founder, Christine Pellech, who thinks the Greek tales of Jason and the argonauts and the Odyssey depict a real life circumnavigation of the globe. Or what about O'Connell's appreciative attitude to this bonkers version of pole shifts, or his claim that the only(!) possible explanations for global flood myths are "either a close encounter with an extraterrestrial body that created a mega tsunami that was on such a scale that it swept around the globe, perhaps a number of times before dissipating or the melting of the Ice Age glaciers produced the cyclical bursting of ice-dams and landbridges and the inundation of vast areas of low-lying land(a). I believe that the balance of probabilities favours the latter explanation." ScepticWombat (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
ADDENDUM: Unless someone comes up with a clear indication that the examples provided here and in the O'Connell article are either taken out of context or do not reflect O'Connell's views (for instance, he may have changed his mind), I suggest we bring this vote to a speedy conclusion as the original nominator has done zilch work on RW apart from JAQing off, concern trolling, and complaining that O'Connell is being treated unfairly without providing any examples other than "he's really nice, trust me"-type claptrap and trying to put a positive spin on O'Connell's crankery. Indeed, Wonderworld's account seems to have been created for no other purpose than to nominate the O'Connell article for deletion. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Good point. I'll close the bloody thing.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Fine by me, though you might consider using some of my sourced stuff above to beef up the article. That would be a fitting case of Nemesis ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Good write up by ScepticWombat. I'm not sure why "crank" was removed since it accurately described Connell. Another example is here: Eumalos of Cyrene, Atlantis Hoax. This is a 18th/19th century forgery, but Connell claims it is an authentic ancient text. Tony O' Connell is quoted on page 115 of Meet Me in Atlantis by Mark Adams:

“”There is another manuscript that confirms Plato, Yes? Yes! Eumalos of Cyrene". Its true; he did, Tony said, nodding in agreement.

HamiticRenaissance (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Original nominator Wonderworld complains[edit]

(Copied from ScepticWombat's talk page)

I am not allowed to write in the deletion discussion (I do not know why, nobody informed me about reasons), so let me answer to your statement at this place: You summed up several citations of Tony O'Connell, but I think they do not justify the word "crank" but a milder judgement.

First, there is much irony in Tony O'Connell's statements transporting some of the criticism you miss. Secondly, in a lexicon you do not add time and again what you like or not like, but just display what this or that author wrote. Silence is not automatically to be seen as agreement, and a complaint that somebody misses to base claims concerning Atlantis is exacly what you expect from an Atlantis lexicon. Thirdly, there is nothing wrong in assuming that the end of the scientific process has not been reached, yet, but that we are approaching closer to the truth than in Victorian times: This does not mean that he agrees with the Victorian nonsense theories, but quite the opposite. And I, too, am not amused about paralleling Plato's Atlantis dialogues with Star Wars. Finally, you are right, that Tony O'Connell is a bit narrow on the possible origins of flood myths, but he has not chosen an impossible origin, and he maybe would quickly change his mind if asked: It is simply a light-handed statement in some corner of an immense work, so you cannot base the claim that he is a crank on this. IMHO you should first ask him whether he really wants to stay with his narrow view.

I assume that the article will stay. Then, you will have to be fair. You will have to sort out in detail what is really wrong, what is intentionally and with insistance wrong, whether he is intentionally silent, and so on, and so on. Much work. I do not trust in this Wiki, that it will be able to create a fair article about Tony O'Connell. But let us see. It is your responsibility. And a failure will be your guilt.

--Wonderworld (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

O'Connell, by his own words, thinks there was a real global flood, believes in Atlantis, hyperdiffusionism and and thinks the angle of the Earth's axis wobbled significantly in the (geologically) recent past and that this was a pole shift. In addition, he fails to challenge Winters' even crankier Afrocentric beliefs and instead simply cites the parts of his crankery he agrees with (in this case Winters' hyperdiffusionism). This is curious because O'Connell has no problems citing criticism of other cranks elsewhere in his lexicon (e.g. his entry on Von Däniken). All the ideas I listed are crankery (as per the "extremely unorthodox beliefs" definition in the article) rooted in pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory and pseudoscience. I cited O'Connell word for word, so if you can find the supposed "irony in Tony O'Connell's statements transporting some of the criticism" you claim I missed, I suggest you cite these so we can all have a chuckle. I've unlocked the vote page so take your complaints/arguments there. I'm copying this thread to the goat section. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

His background is he formerly believed in Immanuel Velikovsky's theories, but he's now critical of those, and von Daniken. I agree: the fact he criticizes a few crazies, doesn't make him suddenly respectable since he still has plenty of fringe, bizarre and pseudo-historical views. The same thing can be said about Thorwald C. Franke, but he managed to get his article deleted. wonderworld is Franke on a sock (his first account was banned), and he's now trying to get Connell's page removed. Franke's page entry should have stayed since he's a crank like Connell, and note how he defends him. They both support each others work - none of course scholarly or peer-reviewed. Franke self-publishes his Atlantis books and then creates fake reviews on Amazon to rate them 5 stars. See the reviewer accounts only have 1 reviews on Franke's books: [1] [2]. They're both Franke reviewing his own books while pretending to be separate persons who bought his self-published books.HamiticRenaissance (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't say I'm sorry that the Franke article was axed:

Firstly, Franke seems to be on a one-man "vanity quest" and his influence seems to consist of self published material that no one else reads.

Secondly, he is far better than O'Connell at avoiding the most obvious crankery, making him a less missional subject.

Thirdly, his writing style is far more hedging and resorts less to the balance fallacy-style employed by O'Connell (where he just list a shitload of other cranks' ideas without delving into the fact that they are fringe nuttery, a tactic similar to teach the controversy). This means that it is more difficult to actually tease out Franke's crankery, though he does seem to depend heavily on JAQing off, especially in relation to actual academia (while always hedging just enough to avoid a full blown Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy/Galileo gambit/persecution complex), but it also makes his crankery less interesting and a debunking would likely bog down in fruitless wikilawyering and discussions about interpretations of how to interpret this or that passage.

Fourthly and finally, Franke, even more than O'Connell, seems to be a nobody with a website, making a debunking of Franke less necessary. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Connell doesn't pretend to be an academic though. Franke is a pseudo-academic obsessed with credibility despite the fact he ignores the consensus by philosophy experts on Plato and classicists: Atlantis is fiction. He came here posting Latin to appear smart, but was using a google translator, describes his website as an "academic approach to Atlantis" (it isn't) and has put himself on google scholar despite none of his publications are peer-reviewed. He self-publishes his work on "Books on Demand", but since no one buys them he writes fake reviews at Amazon. I just see him as a charlatan. Connell in contrast isn't after an academic status and isn't pretending to be someone he's not - Atlantis to him as a layperson is just a reading hobby.HamiticRenaissance (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that just means that Franke has delusions of grandeur and fancies himself a scholar when he's only a pseudohistorian (his Computer Science degree is useless in this context). I find these efforts of his more sad and pathetic than anything else. Do anyone actually read his pretentious crap? I can only find two hits on him from Colavito (who's something of a connoisseur, after all) and both are just passing mentions, whereas Colavito cites Atlantipedia in six articles using it as a quick reference for Atlantis crankery, though O'Connell himself only appears in the review of Meet Me in Atlantis. Aaanywaaay, Franke's pet vanity project doesn't necessarily make him missional. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The Last Superstition | Result: Keep[edit]

The Last Superstition – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Hopelessly tiny stub, according to Diamond Disc. Bicycle^wheel 09:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Surely if Christian/theist apologetics, new atheism and atheist-debates are missional, this book is too. (I haven't actually read it but I often read Feser's blog and I own a couple of his books. On many issues I don't agree with him, but nevertheless he is a witty writer and fun to read.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Tiny, but not hopeless. There must be plenty of material in those two linked reviews. The thing to do with stubs is to expand them, unless there is no missional content that could be added - and in this case there certainly is. Bicycle^wheel 09:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Can this not be expanded? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

This reminds me that once upon a time there was talk of having book reviews on the site. Bicycle^wheel 09:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thorwald C. Franke | Result: Deleted[edit]

Thorwald C. Franke – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not missional.Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Too close to uncited for a BLP. Subject actively protests article existence and questions article content; article content is, again, too uncited to be defended. While Atlantis is missional, Franke appears to be a minor actor who does not support non-rational hypotheses. (See eg http://www.atlantis-scout.de/atlanfaq_engl.htm.) Frankly, there is nothing to be gained from having an article on him -- he's not significant or crazy enough, as far as I can tell. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Saying that Plato's Atlantis could possibly have been based on a real place: That's not a crank idea. That's a perfectly normal, mainstream idea. Saying that just because someone is an expert in Greek mythology doesn't make him or her an expert in Plato's Atlantis: That's not a crank idea. That's a perfectly valid criticism. The reference for Franke having no formal training in history or philosophy links to a page on Franke's own website. So it's not as if he's trying to pass himself off as something he isn't. There aren't any citations to back up the harshest criticisms. He's not a crank. He's just a hobbyist. And, at the end of the day, he's just another nobody with his own website. Spud (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't find anything particularly interesting in the article -- does he suggest that Atlantis is a real place? Apparently not. Claiming that Atlantis was based on a real place does not make someone a crank.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
See my response below. Franke is claiming Atlantis is a real place, not inspired/based on a real place. The number of classicists who argue for this position are an extreme minority. Of course arguing Plato was inspired by a real location when he made up Atlantis as an imaginary place does not make someone a crank - its the consensus among classicists. Virtually all fictional writers are inspired to some extent by real places. LOTR's Middle Earth is even based on real geography, but this doesn't make Mordor real. Franke instead is arguing Atlantis was a real civilization in the central Mediterranean Sea. There are only a handful of classicists who have ever argued this, but Franke isn't a classicist and compared to these fringe academics, Franke's work is of much poorer quality. His work isn't peer reviewed and he's probably using google translator tool when he posts Latin here. His article should be kept but keep the criticism and point out he is a crank.Gorgonite (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
PB (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
DiamondDisc1(talk) 23:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

--Castaigne2 (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Expand don't delete. I am not the Ombud's man 21:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I as the "Subject" (hell, you annoy me!) do not vote. But please consider this: Before you can expand this article, you have to heavily improve and to source each of your outraging accusations properly. Which you can't. Still too many false accusations in the article. The whole article will turn out to be a Mission impossible for RationalWiki as long as RationalWiki wants to be rational. By the way, I have seen that your very own Atlantis article does not exclude the possibility of a historical background for Atlantis, in principle: "It is not known if Atlantis was a fanciful invention on Plato's part, or if stories about it were based on real events that may have happened in the Mediterranean Sea". This whole adventure becomes quite interesting. A Pyrrhus victory is, when Pyrrhus is victorious but the Romans win. Draco dormiens numquam titillandus. Kai ho sophos oute biazei oute biazetai. Hoti men hymeis, o Andres Athenaioi ... --Thorwald C. Franke (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Mr Franke, it's really ok. IF kept, we'll be happy to source it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Did he really just quote the motto of Hogwarts (never tickle a sleeping dragon) in the original Latin? I am not the Ombud's man 22:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
As has been explained many times to Franke, the idea Plato invented Atlantis (as fiction) but was inspired by real events/locations is not controversial; its the orthodox view among classicists. Fictional writers inspired by real events/locations does not make them real. The imaginary Gotham city was based on New York, but this doesn't make it New York. Franke's position on Atlantis is fringe - he is claiming Atlantis was a real place, not that Plato made up the story and was inspired by a real event/location. A very small number of academics hold this fringe view, but Franke isn't one of them - he falls in the pseudo-history category. None of Franke's work is peer reviewed. It wouldn't get accepted in an academic journal. There's obviously a distinction between fringe academia and pseudo-history. I wouldn't consider Franke a fringe academic, but a crank. At least academics with fringe views have qualifications and peer reviewed work; Franke has no credentials aside from an ICT diploma, and he self-publishes his crackpot work.Gorgonite (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
He does not extrapolate far enough from accepted viewpoints that we care. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Totallynotharambe (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Maybe merge him into the Atlantis main article? He isn't especially notable other than the fact that his idea of where Atlantis was is Sicily. Arawn Emrys (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I could go with this myself. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Me too. There are loads of theories about which island Atlantis could have been. This is just one more. Bicycle^wheel 10:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I could buy "not notable" since he's self published, but in what way are Atlantis proponents not missional? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
He himself is what is not missional. He appears to be someone the Internet with an interest in Atlantis and the article is a stub.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Apparently not the real Franke[edit]

The person posting here as Thorwald C. Franke has been blocked on two accounts impersonating Franke and is likely Mikemikev based on the doxxing and a very similar posting style when he resorted to insults.Gorgonite (talk)

Mezionism | Result: Keep[edit]

Mezionism – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This article does a piss-poor job of justifying its own existence let alone explaining what it is about I am not the Ombud's man 17:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I'm the author i will be building article further. mezionism is a neologism for "messianic democracy" which was outlined by J.L Talmon in 1952 Kashifv (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
What's messianic democracy? I am not the Ombud's man 23:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It's totalitarian democracy as outlined by J.L Tamon in his critique of Rousseau Kashifv (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
This type of answer is not exactly helpful. If you do not want to or feal unable to spell it out at the very least you could point to a good source on the topic. I am not the Ombud's man 01:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep, but change the name to either totalitarian democracy or Authoritarian democracy. Mezionism seems to be an obscure term for a concept that other names describe much better. Bicycle^wheel 07:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, 'Mezionism' seems like a brand name. I will provide more reference of its use. Kashifv (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC).
The page has been moved, so now we can discuss its content rather than its title. Bicycle^wheel 12:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
PBfreespace (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Couldn't this just as well go in the authoritarianism article? Though, it will need to explain itself clearer, what with all the sources it uses no less. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Being an orphan isn't a great sign, but it's certainly missional: authoritarian representative democracy is a class of authoritarian ideology. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It probably shouldn't be titled with a neologism that nobody uses, especially as there are other more or less descriptive phrases like "Totalitarian Democracy" that could be used. Annquin (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am sorry for being stupid, but what is a totalitarian democracy? I am not the Ombud's man 17:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  - It's one where the systems at play, in spite of being a democracy in some measurable ways, still lend themselves towards a totalitarian structure of government. For example: the way the Supreme leader in Iran gets to personally veto all candidates for office, including the Islamic Council(which elects the subsequent supreme leader). That system, in spite of being nominally a constitutional democracy creates a system wherein totalitarian control of power is both possible and incentivized. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    - But isn't the Iranian regime described much better by the term "theocracy"? Also the term does not seem to describe any real ideology or system of government. I am not the Ombud's man 18:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      - That's a bit like saying "Isn't the US a bicameral legislature?" as if it implies we don't have a court system. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
        That's just silly. Iran leaves very little doubt about who wields the real power. And that's those who claim to represent god. In the US there is very little doubt that the bicameral legislature while important does not call all the shots. There is also the President and the Supreme Court and in the ideal US they would check and balance one another, but in the real US the President mostly dominates the conversation if not the legislation. I am not the Ombud's man 16:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
        'Mezionism' IS a neologism; however the term correctly references the Zionist arc of J.L. Talmon's inception of totalitarian democracy. Kashifv (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's da Jooz! It's always da Jooz. Why did I get the hunch that "Zionism" wasn't there by accident? I am not the Ombud's man 22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Do "totalitarian democracies" exist in the real world or are they just a theoretical fantasy? And if they do exist in the real world, can we have some examples, along with justification of why this term is a useful way of describing those examples? I've heard Iran mentioned, but I'm unconvinced that "totalitarian democracy" is the appropriate term to describe the current Iranian system – theocracy, or theodemocracy are likely better terms. There also seems to be some suggestion of applying the term to Israel, but, whatever faults Israel may have, "totalitarian" is scarcely the right word to apply to it. If a term has no real world referents, is there any point to it? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
the political scientist who described totalitarian democracy is Israeli it was his "judaization" of fascism (NOT a criticism of Israel). No known example of mezionism at a state level anywhere in the world. 74.95.6.5 (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- If it has never existed, and (unlike communism) no one of significance has ever even advocated it – why bother talking about it? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Communism doesn't exist in the real world but we still talk about it.^{— Unsigned, by: 174.218.136.179 / talk}

A number of governments, real world political parties and armed revolutionary groups have all claimed communism as their ultimate goal. Who has ever claimed to be working towards establishing a "mezionist" or "totalitarian democracy" society? This is why this topic is obscure political science navelgazing in a way in which communism isn't. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Pitcairn Islands | Result: Keep[edit]

Pitcairn Islands – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Sex-crazed incest island != missional. FuzzyCatPotato of the Ineffective VCRs (talk/stalk) 19:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
[add something about RW not being an encyclopaedia here]--JorisEnter (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Obvious delete. If the people arguing "keep" actually put something regarding RW's mission in then I may change my vote.--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought the missional part was obvious - point 2, crankery. Additionally, I've found out that the Island Council considered adopting a "virtual currency", only to be told by the Administrator that Britain wouldn't let them. Totallynotharambe (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Founded by people screaming "freedom" who went on to abduct/enslave/rape Polynesians to found their new utopia only to murder one another soon after. Surely this can be expanded upon even without the recent even more disgusting stories. I am not the Ombud's man 21:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
And the trials had lots and lots of pseudolaw features in them. Totallynotharambe (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Wěǎšěǐǒǐď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
PBfreespace (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 00:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC) 00:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Pepe the Frog (2nd discussion) | Result: Speedy close[edit]

Pepe the Frog – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

no, no god no oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 11:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
You're outnumbered. And really, what could possibly go wrong. ~ Aneris ✻ 13:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Per reasons I gave in the earlier discussion. Furthermore, I think closing the previous AFD and starting a new one straight away is not a very good practice. If the previous AFD was closed too soon, maybe it should be reopened? Or if we really are going to have a 2nd AFD immediately after the first one, all the votes/discussion from the previous one should be copied to this one. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh for fuck's sake.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Worth documenting decently. In particular, the original cartoonist is entirely unhappy with this abuse of this character. And then there's the people who got Pepe tattoos just before the Nazis adopted it ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I support keeping this now just like I supported keeping it the first time. Spud (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
An article like this looks like more Top Kek, potentially bridging the Rick & Morty season gap. My full support. ~ Aneris ✻ 13:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
FFS, we just closed one AfD on this earlier to-bloody-day. Stop. Bicycle^wheel 14:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

When I woke up, I thought the AFD was from 2015. Feels bad man. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
You need to switch to a stronger brand of coffee. Bicycle^wheel 15:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Pepe the Frog | Result: Snowball keep[edit]

Pepe the Frog – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

~~#Any reason why a meme is on RW? Hardly missional. 01:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)^{— Unsigned, by: CheeseburgerFace / talk / contribs}~~

Keep[edit]

It is missional because of its connection with the Alt Right, white nationalism and neoreaction, as the article explains. If those topics are missional – and I guess they fall under mission statement point 3 ("Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism"), and maybe also mission statement point 2 (Documenting the full range of crank ideas) – then this is missional too. The original form of the Pepe meme isn't missional, but the association it has formed with far right politics is. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I missed that somehow. If that's the case, that's better, but is there enough content on Pepe to warrant an article or should it go on the 4chan page if it's mainly a 4chan thing? —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara (talk • stalk) 01:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
It has gone far beyond 4chan now. Donald Trump posted it on Twitter and the Clinton campaign condemned him for doing so. Multiple mainstream media sources covered that. 4chan is generally acknowledged as the place where it gestated but many people who have no idea what 4chan is are aware of Pepe's association with the Trump campaign. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Well since you posted that content on the wiki, it looks like the article is missional e.g. I vote that it stays. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara (talk • stalk) 01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so if you have changed your mind about this, I suggest you update your Delete vote above to make clear that you are withdrawing it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep: SPLC [3] and ADL [4] both recognize it as a hate symbol. Bongolian (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
No doubt about its missionality. Spud (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Needs expansion but it is on mission. Wéáśéĺóíď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll just add my name to this snowball. Bicycle^wheel 08:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
To make a nice round seven.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Eight's better though. Real first name and last initial ^{Talk, talk, talk} ^{skim my contributions} 09:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
An article like this looks like more Top Kek, potentially bridging the Rick & Morty season gap. My full support. And what could possibly go wrong? ~ Aneris ✻ 14:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

It should be merged with 4Chan Tuxer (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree because Pepe has become much broader than 4chan. Trump posting Pepe on Twitter got media coverage and doesn't really have anything to do with 4chan any more. 4chan is an important part of the history of Pepe but Pepe is now much broader than 4chan. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Álvaro Uribe | Result: Keep by a very narrow margin[edit]

Álvaro Uribe – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Has been President of not-America. Who cares? Did he promote woo? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Wẽãšẽĩõĩď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Moar content! PB (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
You are free to research more content for this article and expand it accordingly. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Totallynotharambe (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

I don't see the problem if it gets some work done and some sources. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

Roy Beck | Result: Deleted[edit]

Roy Beck – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Created by a drive by user; not exactly Gold status - needed? I am not the Ombud's man 17:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't seem particularly missional. Bongolian (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Citations of notability needed. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
No citations, no peace. Fuck the legalese. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Yo dawg, that's some sick rhymes right there. I am not the Ombud's man 14:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fun:Sandalism | Result: socks and sandalism[edit]

Fun:Sandalism – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Can someone please explain what this ever was supposed to be? I am not the Ombud's man 19:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I get the joke, but it's not particularly funny. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
While the once-popular Denmark jokes are now critically endangered, I fail to see how this is even funny eight years down the line. Zero, could you explain it to me please? Bicycle^wheel 21:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Wait, +++Denmark+++-jokes? I am not the Ombud's man 21:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The joke is about shoes. Clogs vs. Sandals. That's about it. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Move to WIGO:Clogosphere. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is there no whale template? I am not the Ombud's man 23:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Elena Kagan | Result: a la Scalia[edit]

Elena Kagan – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

WTF? Useless stub. There are literally fork pages longer and more useful than this. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think she is particularly missional.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the fossil record, I am saddened to see that it's taken six years for six users to produce this piece of crap. Spud (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
"Elena Kagan is a judge who tries not to be controversial" isn't worth having as an article. Bicycle^wheel 17:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Wasn't there some controversy when a newspaper ran a picture of her playing softball that some though insinuated her being - and I hope I use the correct expression - a raging homoqueer lesbodyke? I am not the Ombud's man 18:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Even if you could source that, it would go better in an article on whoever said it. Assuming, of course, that we want to record every example of here-today-gone-tomorrow trash-talking we come across. Bicycle^wheel 07:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Expand with all things notable about her... Well yeah, I think that ends up the same as deleting. I am not the Ombud's man 23:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Fear mongering | Result: Merge/redirect with Fear, uncertainty and doubt[edit]

Fear mongering – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Nothing here that couldn't be deleted or added to FUD. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Merge with Fear, uncertainty and doubt. ClickerClock 08:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
To FUD. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Merge to FUD, which could use more material itself. Bicycle^wheel 10:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Merge with FUD. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 08:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Merge, but change the name to fearmongering. PBfreespace (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Either merge into FUD or delete as y'all see fit; just don't leave it as-is. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Alaskan Independence Party | Result: Deleted[edit]

Alaskan Independence Party – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Badly written partial WP copvyo. Is that party even relevant? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I question why the original editor would go to all the trouble of creating this stub and then not following up and making it a nice snarky profile. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Redspace - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Just a big fat link to the WP article would be better than this. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 20:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I see no relevance of this article to the site's mission. They more or less went defunct in the 1990's, so they really don't matter here.Kodak (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Something needs to be done about an article that's still one third self-confessed plagiarism after eight years. Spud (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The party itself would be a useful mention as a part of the modern US secessionist movement but it is otherwise worthless by itself.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Support a merger with secessionist movement article. PBfreespace (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Great British eccentrics | Result: Sent to Coventry Funspace[edit]

Great British eccentrics – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

As this stubby article itself states, "British eccentrics" means people who are harmless in spite of being a bit weird. For me, the phrase "Great British eccentrics" conjures up images of people who are not only harmless but also lovely and cuddly. Those are not the kind of loonies we are concerned with here. Spud (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete, as per Spud. Bongolian (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
--JorisEnter (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Begone! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Perhaps there could be a generic 'eccentrics/eccentricity etc' page - people who are 'at a greater angle to reality than average' but who are mostly not #intentionally# dangerous (See 'Last of the Summer Wine' for generic eccentricity).

Going by [5] eccentricity probably describes persons who are 'borderline RW' (the equivalent of the Darwin Award's Honourable Mentions). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like funspace material to me. Needs more Fifth Duke of Portland though. Bicycle^wheel

17:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be a primarily British phenomenon - see [6] and [7]. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Whether or not this stays, Stanley Green and Bill Boakes certainly appear missional and deserve their own articles. Totallynotharambe (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Pharaoh | Result: Merge[edit]

Pharaoh – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

A topic encompassing religion, government, and pseudohistory, to name a few things. Eminently missional if you ask me. --Ymir (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
As long as it doesn't turn into a general encyclopedic entry, I'm with you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Can probably be turned into something missonal, like the Priest-Kings of Atlantis and related.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
--(((The Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 00:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 00:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
certainly missional, as Ancient Egypt was functionally a theocracy.Tuxer (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
So merge those portions into theocracy? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

After some more thought, I think it would work better if we merged the Pharaoh page and the sections on Ancient Egypt from the Egypt page into a general page on Ancient Egypt. We have a whole category for Ancient Egypt, but no article for it, the two fit together pretty well, and there's plenty of pseudohistory to debunk. They even have a lot of the same information. Kodak (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Great idea, Kodak. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Spud (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm with you guys on this one. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
We used to have an editor who was really into Ancient Egyptian stuff and we suddenly had a bunch of new articles on the topic, but not all were really necessary. Merge this and most of the others into a general Ancient Egypt article, about which there is three tons of woo per person in the world. Bicycle^wheel 19:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Merge it, link the pseudohist articles. FuzzyCatPotato of the Intransigent Thumbtacks (talk/stalk) 00:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Nerd (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Merge feels like the best choice here. Applesauce (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Woo regarding pharaohs is clearly a subset of general ancient Egypt woo. However, I think that due to the volume, diversity and pedigree of ancient Egypt woo (even the ancient Greek had it), that topic might well deserve a dedicated page, rather than a terse subsection in the Egypt article, but that would require more content than is currently in said subsection. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
💠💿☝️ (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I have gotten around to merging them in a new article after two months. see it here. More editing is necessary.Kodak (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Merge! PBfreespace (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
As it stands, the pharaoh article is too weak to merit a slot of its own. If expanded its missionality could merit a separate article, but until then I think it's better off as a subsection of ancient Egypt. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Maybe this article shouldn't be deleted - maybe it's missional, considering the Pharaoh could be explored as a religious figure, and so on. Maybe woo on the curse of the pharaoh or something. But I was getting the impression that this article is approaching a general encyclopedic article - and as nice as they are, and as much trivia there are about pharaoahs, I just don't think we should have general encyclopedic articles at RW... Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
In this case, a general encyclopedic article might work. There are multiple existing articles on woo around Pharaohs that don't justify merging, and the subject is tangentially related to the Bible and pseudohistory. A subheading dealing with those topics and linking to other related RW articles (eg Tutankhamun's curse, Joseph was Imhotep) would help set it right. Kodak (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I also see potential for a totally missional article on pharaohs. But the word here is potential. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

New Games movement | Result: Keep[edit]

New Games movement – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Unclear missionality. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
This does not seem to be on misson. ClickerClock 08:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Looks quite missional to me. Bicycle^wheel 10:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems perfectly on mission to me too. The only problem is that it's completely unreferenced. And since most of it was written four years ago by an editor who hasn't edited here for two years, I don't suppose that's going to be fixed. Spud (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Blimey, Secret Squirrel! whatever happened to him? Bicycle^wheel 17:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually appears quite missional to me, though the article does need help. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything woo-ish about cooperative play, but I know lots of people consider it hippy insanity or an affront against nature, so to that extent it's definitely on mission. I added some links at the end of the article. The organisation still exists[8] and there's a wikipedia article The New Games Book. Annquin (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Feels like something quite stupid that should be in our remit. I remember playing very boring "cooperative" games at a school run by weird Quaker hippies with personal issue, Community was one. The point was ... there was no point. I'm not sure anyone played it twice - David Gerard (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I've no problem with covering the stupidity underlying the games (eg, Esalen Inst.). But why cover the games themselves? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 07:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Illustrative examples are often helpful, and only one game is described in detail. Bicycle^wheel 10:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Mm. That's fair. I still think it'd be better to cover them in the main article. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Indecline | Result: Snowballed into deletion[edit]

Indecline – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This page does not seem missional. Bongolian (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
non-missional, non-interesting, non-not total crap. Bicycle^wheel 19:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't even see this redirecting anywhere with a point to it - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
What the heck?-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Kill it with fire. Or liquid nitrogen. Whichever is more convenient. PBfreespace (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I personally prefer liquid nitrogen. Or liquid helium. Because Leiden.--JorisEnter (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Pathos gambit | Result: Keep[edit]

Pathos gambit – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

A simple Google search will confirm that nobody uses this phrase other than FuzzyCatPotato. The phenomenon described isn't a distinct fallacy but a variant on emotional appeal and is already discussed as such on that page (under emotion baiting). Anything cromulent could be merged there but we don't need endless quotes from parody Tumblr blogs & the like, & that awful Hitler rage comic should just generally be deleted from the universe. Alternatively kick the whole thing to essay space. Ŵêâŝêîôîď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Redspace is a quite fitting alternative to essayspace - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Of all the flavours in the internet rainbow, you have to be so salty? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

It's quite literally the opposite of an emotional appeal. To argue they are the same is to argue communism and red-baiting are the same. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
No, that's absurd. Quite literally the opposite of emotional appeal would be not appealing to emotion, whereas what this essay describes is an argument based on the emotions of the people involved rather than the logical merits of their arguments - i.e. an appeal to emotion. Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not the opposite of an emotional appeal — it's an inverse emotional appeal. And a distinct one enough at that, friend. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree in that it is an argument that references emotion, but to call it an appeal to emotion seems inaccurate. It doesn't appeal to the opponent in hopes that the opponent will bite and become emotional; it accuses the opponent of already having bent to their emotions in hopes of convincing others that the opponent has become emotional. Definitely think you could state that this is closely related to appeal to emotion, but it does seem distinct. B) talk 20:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Like the internet's biggest database of fallacies isn't the right place to present thought-out novel fallacies. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a subset of ad hominem (accusing someone of being emotional) and a form of bulverism, and could use some improvements and clarifications. In my view, the RW should expand on rhetorics, but as several of my own were deleted, it looks like another direction is desired by the mob. ~ Aneris ✻ 17:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
And some were restored. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
What FCP said.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's a subset of another fallacy, but so are others. Has enough worthwhile information over the paragraph in the other article to merit its existence. Although the Hitler comic, while driving home the point, is imo kinda meh. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 20:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep B) talk 20:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
hashtag keep PBfreespace (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

It seems like it could in some cases (though not in all) be a tone argument, conditional on if you're accusing someone of presenting emotionally or just using emotional arguments. If there's agreement, probably worth noting in the article? B) talk 07:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If it is on the Internet it must be true | Result: Moved to essay[edit]

If it is on the Internet it must be true – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

I decided to temporarily ignore the horrible look of this page and read its contents. And I found them a bit pointless. We've got some good but fairly basic advice about looking for reliable sources. And we've got three examples of some of the millions of things that are wrong on the internet. Besides which, nobody really believes everything on the internet is true. That would mean having to believe lots of contradictory things, like having to believe that God exists and that God doesn't exist at the same time. Some of the contents of this page just might find a home in other articles. But really, if you want to share something stupid that you read on Facebook, do it in the Saloon Bar. Spud (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Balete. Let it be re-made in essay space — if it has to be — by the creator. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
It's an essay, not an article. Move to essay space or delete. Same goes for "If it is not on the internet, it can't be true". Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the "What can you do about this" section is worth revising and adding to some appropriate other mainspace page, but then again it all could just live in essay space. Not like this site is lacking coverage of critical reasoning. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ B) talk 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree, move it to essay space if it is to be kept. Bongolian (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Also move If it is not on the internet, it can't be true to essay space. Bongolian (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I am the author. I feel this page is needed because there are actually many people out there who actually believe idiocy such as "the Queen is a lizard woman" and "the Earth is flat". I feel it would be helpful to point them towards something that is informative and satirical to show them how foolish they are. There is a similar article on the uncyclopedia, but that article is a little too heavy in satire and does not contain any advice on how to handle those who claim the ridiculous.

I will apologise for the format, I am not the best in the world at typing, but I have put in the effort and done my best. If you feel that more examples should be added, please add them. If you feel the format can be improved, then I will make an attempt, but would be happy for others to try. This was my first attempt at anything like this. ^{— Unsigned, by: Rich1 / talk / contribs}

A major part of the mission of this site is refuting idiocy like that But, like I said, there are millions of things that are wrong on the internet. if you tried to list them all on one page, the page would soon take too long to load and would become impossible to edit as a result. It's also too broad a topic. Pages here should be more specific. And don't use Uncyclopedia as a model. Spud (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Note also If it is not on the internet, it can't be true. Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 10:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I did note it. Badly formatted again. But I think it has potential. Spud (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Essay:If it is on the Internet it must be true and Essay:If it is not on the internet, it can't be true. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Neil Cavuto | Result: Keep by a very narrow margin[edit]

Neil Cavuto – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

What good does having this article have? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Poorly written and off mission. The "snark" is unfunny and doesn't communicate anything meaningful. Lazy hitpiece. Conscience (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

um ... that's not a convincing deletion reason - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Your keep reason isn't very convincing, either... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Keep! PBfreespace (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
No reason to off it. Applesauce (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Maybe merge him and other marginal Fox personalities into a single article? Bloviators with a bigger profile like Bill O'Reilly can keep their own articles. --Ymir (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Cavuto is a fairly minor Fox pundit who never goes off the deep end but also is never the sane straight talker.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 23:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

August 2016[edit]

AMR TWIG | Result: Snowballed into deletion[edit]

AMR TWIG – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Could be missional but it's currently a data dump/bad translation. Bongolian (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
It's completely and utterly incomprehensible. Better not to have an article about him at all than to have one that no English speaker can read. Spud (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks the same kind of spammy mess as when people post their CVs on Wikipedia convinced they are of world importance, or just for advertising. Not missional, not comprehensible. Annquin (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The person covered seems missional, but the article itself is just an unsourced word salad right now. Looks easier to rewrite from scratch than to salvage. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
My thoughts are pretty much the same as Annquin's.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Olympic Games | Result: deader than [insert World Record broken this year][edit]

Olympic Games – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This page is currently not missional and has only snark for content. Bongolian (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
This page is currently not missional and doesn't even have snark for content. It's just plain bad, and stub as a ***** toe. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Is it really necessary to open an Afd for a silly, tiny stub? Just delete it. We don't need Wikipedia levels of bureaucracy around here. I think there could probably be a missional article about the Games, covering things like how they've become a corporate sponsor festival, how they're a bottomless money pit that tax dollars get thrown down, and maybe something about PEDs. Deleting a basically content-free stub doesn't prevent someone from creating a real article, of course. --Ymir (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

True, but we're not exactly drowning in new articles either (stub or no), and it's always better to defer to the mob. Worst case, nobody replies in a day or so, and then you do things Ymirs way. What's to lose with having the patience for due process? It's a Wiki, not an FPS shooter. Things don't have to happen instantly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's just a waste of time and energy. If someone really really thinks it was a great article they can ask for it to be undeleted. "Due process"? We're not a court. You seem to care a lot more about articles being deleted than people being blocked. How come you aren't demanding automatic community review of blocks? --Ymir (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Whoah, now I'm suddenly not as bad as just for supporting the idea of amicable and open communal proceedings? "Gee, that's a nice fallacy, mister! I'll pet it and walk it every day, promise!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Elon Musk | Result: failure to thrive[edit]

Elon Musk – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Stub w/ no growth in a week. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing inherently wrong with stubs. Conscience (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Three weeks now. It would be a nice article to have, but this isn't it yet - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Certainly connected to our mission, as he is seen as the next messiah without there being much substance behind it. And some of his claims are just obviously ridiculous. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Why don't we merge it with hyperloop? Nerd (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Merge Hyperloop into Elon Musk. Or the other way around. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Or simply delete the Elon Musk article in practice by blanking its current stub content, yet keeping it as a redirect to Hyperloop. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Why not? Applesauce (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I could write a quality article about him, but I don't have the energy right now. Until I or someone else gets around to it, it should be deleted. When or if it is complete is should be merged with Hyperloop. TeslaK20 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Republican backlash against Donald Trump | Result: Deleted[edit]

Republican backlash against Donald Trump – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This is not worthy of its own article. Anything of merit should go on the Trump page. Bongolian (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Either merge with Trump's page or the 2016 Repub primary election.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Let it marinate in a sandbox and see what happens before it lives on as a main space stub. Then I also suggest the topic has a better home at the other aforementioned established articles. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 04:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
A single sentence about something of questionable missionality does not belong in mainspace.--JorisEnter (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Refusing to endorse a candidate, like Ted Cruz did, hardly constitutes a "backlash". Furthermore, being noteworthy is not the same as being missional on RationalWiki. And lots of sub-articles about a subject really aren't our thing. On the contrary, there has been a recent move towards merging several smaller articles to form one big one. And if all you've got to write about something is one sentence, it's most definitely not time for you to create a mainspace article about it yet. Spud (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I would write more,but I don't see the point if it's going to be deleted-Maeve (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Just no. Okay then, why on earth would this merit an article of its own? ScepticWombat (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
There are missional aspects of Trump that could be spun off into separate articles, e.g. Trump's authoritarianism or Trump and religion or conspiracy theories about Trump being a democrat agent, but why this? Annquin (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Put a notice on the talk page anticipating this. The Trump article is long enough already. It's like a TOS agreement,the longer it is, the less chance people are going to read everything. The fact is, the large amount of Republicans coming out against Trump is very noteworthy and I really fail to see any good arguments on here so far as to why it shouldn't have its own article.-Maeve (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Move to Sandbox/Userspace another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Mansplaining | Result: keep, perhaps someone can bother with rewrite plans[edit]

Mansplaining – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This is ultimately a gender-based insult that doesn't add to social justice discourse -- it alienates rather than unifies allies of feminism. Having an article on mansplaining -- and supporting it wholeheartedly (with the exception of the embedded video) is like having an article on "fedora'd neckbearded basement-dwelling men". There is some scientific basis for males valuing female conversation less -- but this article does not reflect that, and perhaps cannot reflect that. Moreover, the current article essentially takes all cases of "males do something that goes against female interests" and claims it is "mansplaining". αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The article covers: men telling women they are wrong about the effects of rape, abortion, or birth control, a solely male group being named experts on birth control for the purposes of telling women how they're allowed to receive it, men telling women that they don't understand what it's like to be subjected to sexism, men having a panel about the question "why don't women like us" then shooting down the answers that women gave them, and a man telling a woman that she was wrong that women like her often felt objectified at conferences. It is quite disingenuous to portray that simply as "males do something that goes against female interests" -- these are each cases where men are telling women that the women don't truly understand what it's like to be a woman.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
...And regardless of if we like the term or not, it is missional and established, and furthermore - any criticism of the actual term it self also belongs in said article about the term. TL;DR: keep. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 12:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 12:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
One problem with feminist discourse is that so little of it is about women. This article on a stupid bit of cant does us no favors, and basically condemns 49% of the human race for following the stereotypical assumptions shared by their culture. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
there are already terms for this kind of bebavior, why does this case need its own special term? Why must i learn bullshit terms invented by idiots to pretend i'm part of the in crowd? All internet portmanteau words should burn in a fire. Manufactroversy should be incinerated too, and its ashes scattered to the winds to prevent it becoming a shrine to ugly words that stick in the pallet when spoken aloud. These are words never uttered by human tongues. Many of these terms would be better placed in urban dictionary. That jolly list of MRA terms compiled by folk with far too much time on their hands especially. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
If you're going to complain about people using language wrong, I hope you're aware that a "pallet" is a shipping container, and "bebavior" either looks like a typo or a neologism relating to Justin Bieber. --Ymir (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete it. PB (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Applesauce (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Nothing about this or so many SJW tropes is remotely on mission. Conscience (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

No way. Ŵêâŝêîôîď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't be inane. - David Gerard (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it alienates male allies, and even if it did, that's no reason to delete. Annquin (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It alienates me, and I'm a would-be male ally. I'm not a fan of third-wave feminism because of buzzwords like 'mansplaining'. It makes people who use it look like entitled little pricks, no offense. PB (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
A would-be ally who has to constantly be told how helpful they are and given all the attention was never an ally in the first place.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Vulpius (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The term is established and missional, so regardless of what we think of it, it should be covered. That being said, I think the term is a sexist term of abuse. I've actually been accused of mansplaining once in the wild, over an app called QuizUp, by a female who didn't even know I was a man - she just assumed. Whatever the term means, she was making a fallacious argument and I pointed that out, without bringing genitalia into the discussion. Doing that was somehow mansplaining; the message being that I had to shut up because I was the wrong sex, or something to that effect. The article is an obvious keep, and all valid criticisms should go in the article. If there's a lot to say on the term, then grow the article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't see how this scares off potential allies. It would be better though with the addition of a legitimate criticism section and maybe how the usual non-ally suspects respond to the phenomenon.∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 19:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It scares me off, as a would-be male ally. Now of course, this term isn't the sole thing scaring me off; part of it is the 29 other derisive terms. PB (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
A would-be ally who has to constantly be told how helpful they are and given all the attention was never an ally in the first place.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
It is really a thing, and as such there is something to document. Though the article itself is largely nonsense, and the part about Elevatorgate is your usual fiction writing. Watson discussed with Paula Kirby and others in a previous panel. Then the lift incident happened (a guy invited her for coffee in the confined lift) and she made the video retelling this non-event. She then had a spat with several female youtubers, including Stef McGraw, who made video responses. No mansplaining whatsoever. Then she made severe accusations at the beginning of a CFI Talk against McGraw, the audience "right now" and the atheist movement at large that they were allegedly complicit in rape culture — Watson literally brings up rape in context of an awkward lift coffee invite — and THIS is where it took off. Problem was, that many had not seen the talk, including Dawkins, leading to the familiar Motte and Bailey situation where Elevatorgate becae two and more things at once, which our favourite propagandameisters keep switching around like thimblerigger in Palermo. Dawkins responds to the "zero bad" situation, while the ongoing flamewar was already about rape culture, which then led the SJW zealots to pretend most people "hate women" because, thanks to the switch, they mean rape, while other people think it's about awkward proposals in confined spaces. Congratulations, btw, five years of massive disinformation, well done. ~ Aneris ✻ 13:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
If "regressive left" can remain then so can this one. Typhoon (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
But why? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Definite keep.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
We're debating this?-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should incorporate this article into the article? Just because its a controversial new concept should not justify the need to delete it from Rationalwiki. Let's not delude into Conservapedia logic with new ideas AmericanExceptionalism2016 (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The term exists and is used and the question of whether it alienates specific groups is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to the question of whether RW should have an article on it. The only reason I'd support a delete would be if delete proponents could make a case the article is wholly wrong in its depictions of the term and its use or some similar "It's an unfair hatchet job" line. So far, I haven't seen any of that. I think, however, that a splaining could serve as a new home for this article, given that it has given rise to other splaining versions (I'm guessing that, in practice, whitesplaining is probably the most frequent variant in the US). A Google search on the variants of splaining are indicative: mansplaining (536,000 hits), splaining (146,000 hits), whitesplaining (31,800 hits), leftsplaining (1130 hits), rightsplaining (547 hits). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Just to highlight the suggestions in the Goat section below to create a new, general article about splaining, though given the prevalence suggested by the Google search results I mentioned in my Keep vote, it could be argued that other types of splaining should be a subsection of mansplaining. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Well, we could always call it "condesplaining" since the article itself talks other forms of "'splaining" to other minorities on minority issues.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 07:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

second thought, i agree with this. Rename Splaining and have "mansplaining" links go there. Examples are turds like Bill O'Rielly telling black Americans how to fix their communities. Petey Plane (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

splaining is a term that is actually in currency too. Support move - David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Support move.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I would have no problem with calling it "splaining" but we would need to give more examples of people being condescending to minorities on issues that concern them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 18:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Is "splaining" really a term that is in currency too? If so, I support a move too. But I've never heard "splaining" as a stand-alone term, outside of it being short for "explaining"; like the way people say "telly" instead of "television" or whatever. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

this thread from 2012 suggests that privilege could be a good target too. Bicycle^wheel

20:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

So you are proposing that we cut down this article and reduce to a section about "splaining" minority issues while being blind to your privilege.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 20:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That could work. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Would the "keep"ers be happy with splaining? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on the way Petey Plane and Gerard describe it above; yes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I support this. It lets us expand the article as well. --Ymir (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, editors should be expected to have produced a document to RationalWiki moderators or board members which demonstrate sufficiently their female gender/sex proper. Surely, people without such documentation should refrain from mansplaining in the splaining article. Likewise, sections about whitesplaining shall only ever be edited by people of colour proper. This should be true for all axes of oppression in this scientific rigorous, mathematically proven Matrix of Domination. Let's try to make this article scientifically accurate and complete, and add all intersectional categories described by experts in the field who totally agree that there are 3—14 intersectional categories (depending on who you ask, naturally). These categories are: (1) race (2) sex and (3) class as the Triple Oppression model, which is outdated, plus potentially (4) gender, (5) health, (6) religous/secular, (7) ethnicity , (8) culture, (9) nationality, (10) location west or rest, (11) age , (12) settled/nomad, (13) society status primitive/developed, (14) possessions. If you doubt the solidity of this rigorous work, please read Social Justice where you learn about levels of analysis, which is Science proper. The levels of analysis in this case follow the Collect-Underpants—Questionmark—Profit model of research. I personally have no plans to send documents to anyone, but I genuinely look forward to this article. I'm sure it can get a Gold Status soon, and be recommended to others along other science articles, like e.g. Evolution. ~ Aneris ✻ 04:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the criticisms against the term are as missional as the term itself is. And clearly, much can be said against it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

None of the articles are critical in any important way, and many here are fully into Intersectionality, too, as the foremost ideology within American Secularism (actually, it's Critical Race Theory, which contains Intersectionality as one key element). I might add, I only found references to fourteen axes at most, but that model did not mention (15) cis/trans, which is obviously a thing for social justice warriors, too. And there's yet another one that comes up frequently, (16) neurotypical/neurodivergent. ~ Aneris ✻ 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

CRT includes intersec

FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

e.g.
*http://www.odec.umd.edu/CD/RACE/CRT.PDF
*also see Kimberlé Crenshaw
~ Aneris ✻ 00:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Immigration | Result: Snowball deleted[edit]

Immigration – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This is only an encyclopedia article and I highly doubt RW readers don't know what immigration is. You could transfer the poem to Illegal immigration and edit this article to redirect to Illegal immigration if really necessary. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 11:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
We do not cover general encyclopedic terms and concepts. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Awful. Delete. Ŵêâŝêîôîď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
~~Deport~~ Delete that thing. We have already had an article on illegal immigration. Nerd (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Snark! :D Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
--JorisEnter (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
There could be an article on this topic! This isn't it - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Speedy. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Nothing of value. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The poem? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Assault rifle | Result: Merged into Gun[edit]

Assault rifle – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

"An on-mission article about assault rifles, their place within gun culture, gun crime & the gun control debate is feasible. The current version is instead devoted wholly to guncruft & pedantry around the definition of the term, something that's a common feature (& derailing tactic) in debates about assault weapon ownership, but doesn't serve any of our missions. Cutting & pasting it from one page to another doesn't fix this. It either needs a complete rewrite or deletion." Damn straight, Weaseloid. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice for non-shit actually-missional coverage of the topic - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

So rewrite it. Bicycle^wheel 19:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't feel that "pedantry around the definition of the term" is a "derailing tactic." The term is used incorrectly, often to trick people into thinking that civilian semi-automatic rifles that look like military fully-automatic rifles are actually fully-automatic themselves. --Tracer (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
If you don't like it, re-fuckin-write it. PBfreespace (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it seems missional, and there's not a ton wrong with how it's written. Applesauce (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Merge/redirect into gun, moving what's useful into there. I think that a certain amount of genuine information about the weapons themselves is warranted. We shouldn't need to be "derailed" by it, but we can't be completely ignorant of it either. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Is a type of gun. A bit of information might be interesting because of the gun control debate, but a separate article is probably not needed.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
As long as appropriate emphasis is laid on how the term is misused in aid of FUD propagation, or, in Zero's words, "how utterly useless the term is in politics since it means different things to different people." Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I'm okay with anything really. My entire point of the article was to show how utterly useless the term is in politics since it means different things to different people. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticisms of Bernie Sanders | Result: Merged back into the main article[edit]

Criticisms of Bernie Sanders – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Why not keep this? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Laurogeita, the idea isn't that we delete the contents of the article, the idea is that we put it back in the main BS article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Well it has reduced the edit warring, hasn't it? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Has it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Can I answer with a question? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Uh, aren't you already? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Am I? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
If you are, would you just answer the original question instead? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Which question? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You claimed it has reduced edit warring, and I asked "Has it?", correct? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

What the actual fuck is wrong with you, Laurogeita Hamabost? Why do you try to intentionally obfuscate other people? You seem like a malicious troll masquerading as a respectable user.^{— Unsigned, by: 173.88.182.123 / talk / contribs}
Easy there big fella! We're just enjoying a little horseplay. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

To answer the initial question; I think it has. But that is more a truthiness than necessarily observed proven fact that would stand up to scientific rigor. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
So then... Ready to move that Keep vote to Merge? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No. I think this is a good though not perfect solution. Let's keep this for a handful of weeks and see whether edit wars flare up again. If not, problem solved. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Not gonna happen, buddy. 8 votes to 1 for merging it back in (and anyone who wants to divide the articles again will need more than 8 editors supporting that move from the outset). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Merge with BS article oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, merge. The idea of starting up separate "Criticisms of..."-articles that split from the main article is the type of thing that could use mob support via vote before being enacted. If similar articles were made for other candidates, merge those with their mother article as well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
What RBP said.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Send it back to where it came from, the main Bernie article. Bongolian (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
MERGE! PBfreespace (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Merge back, otherwise other articles would need the same treatment. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 11:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Merge like lightning - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

All criticism of Saint Bernie shall be kept out of his article by order of the Righteous Cult of Sanders. Anyone wanting this merged back in is a $hill of the Clinton The Evil One. Bicycle^wheel 18:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Have you gotten your Correct The Record paycheck yet? Mine's still in the mail. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 14:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn Musgrave | Result: Deleted[edit]

Marilyn Musgrave – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Another defanged wingnut. Neither dangerous nor relevant. Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
agree PBfreespace (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
--Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Standard wingnut. No need for even more articles.--JorisEnter (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

If that score of 99 is true, then maybe she deserves a mention in a list of elected wingnuts somewhere. Bicycle^wheel 08:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Premium rate telephone number | Result: Deleted[edit]

Delete[edit]

There is nothing missional in this article at all. that it is occasionally used by fake psychics etc means nothing - they also advertise in gossip rags (i'm told) but we don't cover those. Bicycle^wheel 17:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Might as well have an article on paper, naming people you people dislike who use it. Conscience (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Same as BW. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The reasons for deleting this have already been very eloquently stated. I can't say it any better.Spud (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Can't find much missionality in this. The fact that scammers use it doesn't make it relevant.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Rewrite it into an article about scam artists and woo peddlers using this stuff.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 18:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 18:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
They're still only *using* it. The phone line itself isn't the woo, it's only incidental to the woo. It's like having an article about books because David Icke writes books. Bicycle^wheel 18:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly books but still ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Faunas (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

There could be an article, but this isn't it - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie | Result: Deleted[edit]

Woody Guthrie – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This article doesn't appear to be the least bit missional, and indeed appears to be generally encyclopedic. It provides no original research either, it's just a very poor alternative to his TOW article. The type of article we don't write here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Article currently has zero missionality, and is unlikely to acquire such.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Woody is a hero of the progressive movement. Deleting him would be an insult to all true progressives. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not questioning that; I'm questioning the missionality of the article on him. And it's just a short encyclopedic entry - precisely the ones we do not do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Huge troublemaker against the forces of bullshit, so relevant. Article could do with improvement of course. In its present state I wouldn't object to moving it to funspace, though I do think there's missional stuff to add - David Gerard (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I would also argue that, unless the article actually becomes "rationalwikified" and starts covering him as a "huge troublemaker against the forces of bullshit" in the way that we cover relevant people, it may be necessary to move the article to funspace. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

If the guy is genuinely missional it might be kept, but the current article has close to zero missionality (other than perhaps the McCartyist bit).--JorisEnter (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep... and even that portion is just an unsourced mention. Besides, countless unmissional figures were blacklisted too. The missionality of the current article is truly 0. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Interesting story about Guthrie and "big copyright". Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I wrote this back in ~~the Bronze Age~~ when RW was still an anti-Conservapedia site. It was to show them that there could be such a thing as a left-wing Christian (Guthrie being one I happened to know something about). I doubt that anybody at CP ever read it, let alone got its point. So, as a stick to hit CP with, it probably failed, and certainly doesn't serve that purpose now. Bicycle^wheel 08:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Does that count as a vote for deletion?--JorisEnter (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you think it does. I just meant that its original purpose no longer applies. I'll leave it to others to decide if we still need it. I'd vote keep, but only on sentimental grounds. Bicycle^wheel 08:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Robrail | Result: Deleted[edit]

RationalWiki:Robrail – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Per Carpetsmoker, "Project pages are not here for bullying or to fight a personal vendetta with a user." Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
If them's the rules. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
See, you took something fun, and made us have to make a rule about how it's bad because you used it to fight an edit war. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Because Hipocrite was being a massive bitch. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Meh.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Nerd (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
--(((The Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC) 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Keep it! I think it's funny. I don't personally mind pages like this, even if one was made about me (which I think would be difficult to put together). PBfreespace (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
We only provide this service to our most valued monomaniacal gobshites. Bicycle^wheel 20:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

List of countries | Result: Deleted[edit]

List of countries – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This just isn't our thing. We're not an encyclopedia. And most of those red links are never going to get turned blue. We've already pretty much decided that we don't need articles about every country in the world. There's nothing mission-worthy about Tristan da Cunha or Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. So what good does this do us? Spud (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
What he said.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
See above.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 10:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 10:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Superfluous in comparison to a category containing countries. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Completely pointless list of places that we may never have articles on, and which misses out non-independent countries such as Tibet and Scotland. All together now: RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia! Bicycle^wheel 14:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

What's wrong with this article, "list of countries" and why do you want to delete it, and where else would we find a list of countries on RationalWiki instead? -- PK2 (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The answers to your first two questions can be found above. There would be nothing wrong with it on a general encyclopedia wiki. But RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia. As to where else would you find a list of countries on RationalWiki, you wouldn't. As I've already said, it's just not our kind of thing. Spud (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Does it make sense to have a list of countries we do have articles about? Or is the category sufficient? Also, it points to a few article-less countries which are on-mission for authoritarianism or other subjects. I was semi-considering writing on Equatorial Guinea (a very nasty oil state with coup-related conspiracy theories), while Eritrea is known as one of the most brutal totalitarian regimes in the world. There must be something to write about East Timor, and maybe Qatar, UAE, and Central African Republic too. Whether a list of countries is the best way to record this is another question (we could add the relevant ones to the TODO list), and the list of dependencies seems pointless. Annquin (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It's probably better to put the countries that are relevant on the to do list, where people might actually look at them.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes. there are plenty more mission-worthy countries that we should have articles about. No, we don't need a page that lists them. The category pages already do that. Spud (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet | Result: Deleted. A new article might be created about him one day. But this one was so bad it had to be nuked.[edit]

Daniel Tammet – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Just putting this up for AFD if its author doesn't expand it. Author is currently banned, might not return, etc. Currently stub and unreferenced. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete it and put it up as a to do list item.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, let's just delete and ask someone interested in this person to re-write the whole page properly. Nerd (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The guy who put that very stub smear piece together appears to be a crank, and right now we're just hosting his stub opinion piece. Delete. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

From a quick google search, it looks like he's probably a missional person. However, the article in its present state is a huge steaming pile of goat manure and needs to be scrapped and rewritten. Bicycle^wheel 19:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

George Allen | Result: Deleted[edit]

George Allen – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Also-ran candidate from 2006. Not liable to be missed. Can be condensed into the Republican Party article. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, just delete it. Nothing that relates to conservatism in general or the Republican party -- he's just a forgettable asshat. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Does not look missional in any way, shape or form.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
"We all know the macaca story" No, we don't. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It's all unsourced. As the good Reverend has just pointed out, it's written for Americans in 2008 who know about him already. It's a bit of crap that needs to be flushed away. Spud (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Yep, merge into relevant article and cut out the first, boring, half. also, actually no, I don't know about the macaca. should I? Bicycle^wheel 19:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

The Magic Sandwich Show | Result: Kept[edit]

The Magic Sandwich Show – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Stub that's unlikely to be expanded. Also, I don't think we need an article on a random podcast by a bunch of YouTubers (viz. Drunken Peasants). JorisEnter (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Prominent skeptics Conscience (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Significant participants, could do with expansion, no reason to kill though - David Gerard (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Relevant, but in dire of need growing beyond a stub.--The Kigel (talk) (mail) 18:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 18:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Clearly in mission. Taba (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
As above. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

June 2016[edit]

Delta function | Result: deleted[edit]

Delta function – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The article deals with something that isn't particularly relevant to RW's mission (unless Derpak were to argue that it proves that your mind is infinite or something, but I haven't heard him do that). The corresponding Wikipedia article deals with the subject in much more depth as well.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC) JorisEnter (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
This article gives a rather superficial discussion and is factually wrong as it is right now. It is less then a cheap copy of the corresponding Wikipedia article. I can give a concise description of the delta distribution in Paul Dirac's page. Furthermore, there is currently no sign of this being abused by anti-intellectuals. Nerd (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I looked through "what links here" and found every example was because of the transcluded mathematics template. Seems like a sure sign it's just not relevant to anything else here. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
A possible topic for a Category:Fun article, but this isn't that article. Boot it into Row Z. ProblemChimp (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Superdelegate | Result: Kept[edit]

Superdelegate – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Questionably missional given it's an an unscientific mainstream nonreligious nonmedia topic; fails to address conspiracist claims and supports claims of bribery; only looks at Democratic supers; would be easily merged into Primary Election. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Are there GOP supers? only the members of the RNC (168 members) & state chairman which, as I understand it, was the the same (168 members) among Democrats before the Superdelegate innovation. nobs^{Pat Nixon for President} 00:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
There are 437 unpledged Republican delegates, which includes the 168 that you mentioned, which take up about 18% of the total delegate count at the convention. Unlike Dem Supers, they don't come from every state, however, only from some. Trump was in a minor uproar over PA having so many unpledged delegates, because 54 of their 71 delegrates are unbound. They take up roughly the same percentage of the delegate count as supers, but don't get as much attention. Overall, the Republican nomination process is profoundly much less democratic than the Democrat's, if Trump was running on the Dem side he could have been much more easily beaten and if Hillary was a Republican she'd have clinched the nomination in March, probably. Hentropy (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Gimme a cite on the 437. If what you say has any validity, it makes Superdelegates all the more missional as a study of undemocratic authoritarianism. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 13:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The link you provided is bogus. There is no information remotely resembling what you stated above at ballotopedia. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 17:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hahaha. Nice try, Rob. Typhoon (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. ya know I feel this is one of my better works. It's been more than 36 years in the making. I moved to Minneapolis from Wisconsin in 1979 when Don Fraser (of the McGovern-Fraser Commission) was Mayor and at the same time the DNC sued the state of Wisconsin. I had a friend who worked on Bronson LaFollette's campaign who defended the state. In 1980, the nite b4 Mondale & Carter got beat by Reagan, I was at the airport to welcome Mondale home. Stood about 5 feet in front of the podium where he spoke (the Secret Service check out my Super 8 camera to see if it could fire a projectile). So I'm well aware of the issues and background. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 03:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
More nobshit. Hipocrite (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

An excellent example of party bigwigs making the primaries into a big-ass farce. Most people here seem to be OK with them cause these supers are favoring Hillary.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 17:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Bernie's trying to woo them away, now Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
None of them have voted yet so their endorsements aren't exactly important. Supers should vote for candidates who win their state like the electoral college does.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 19:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
This was requested and will probably come up again in the future. It is fairly convoluted to even have them. I think that this could be merged but I think it would lose some of its info due to trimming.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 19:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep and enshrine in the Library of Congress. nobs^{#NeverHillary} 00:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
There's probably missionality in this.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
the article needs lots of polishing but with hard work it can serve the mission, by revealing the corruption of the Yankee two-party autocracy.Tuxer (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Is this the Bernie/Hillary edit war coming here too? - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Doubtful.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC) 23:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Move to essay space until some poor chump volunteers to fact-check it. RobS' relationship with reality is rocky at best, and downright acrimonious when it comes to politics and history (cf. the "New Ordeal"). Robledo (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well whud choo expect? Just like the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, the New Ordeal has been lost to posterity. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 19:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Robrail | Result: Deleted[edit]

RationalWiki:Robrail – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Per Carpetsmoker, "Project pages are not here for bullying or to fight a personal vendetta with a user." Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
If them's the rules. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
See, you took something fun, and made us have to make a rule about how it's bad because you used it to fight an edit war. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Because Hipocrite was being a massive bitch. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Meh.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Nerd (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
--(((The Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC) 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Keep it! I think it's funny. I don't personally mind pages like this, even if one was made about me (which I think would be difficult to put together). PBfreespace (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
We only provide this service to our most valued monomaniacal gobshites. Bicycle^wheel 20:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Obscenity | Result: Deleted[edit]

Obscenity – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Landmartian permastub, barely missional, not useful or referenced David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Begone! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

This tends to be a criticism to free speech that social conservatives tend to lob quite often. It is definitely a slippery slope when you are arguing with them about porn and sex (i.e. sodomy). I suggest we expand this and mention the fallacious reasoning associated with it instead of deleting it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC) 03:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Obscenity is usually by conservatives to attack sex-ed, pornography and sexual minorities and is part of the mission to combat authoritarianism. The page however needs to be expanded grealty Tuxer (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Might be useful in pornography. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Not worthy of its own article, not much of use left in there. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
What 142․124․55․236 said.ClickerClock (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Seems relevant to our general anti-conservativeness. Maybe merge into Conservative correctness? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:14, 22 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
- The anti-conservativeness, though, isn't our mission. Don't get confused here. Anti-conservative things come from the fact that there are a lot of anti-science and/or authoritarian ideals in mainstream American conservatism. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Portrayals of religion in pop culture | Result: SNOW delete[edit]

Portrayals of religion in pop culture – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The subject of the article is potentially limitless, and the treatment is banal, trivial, fancrufty, listcrufty and lacking in analysis. It's changed very little in the month since being posted, and shows no signs of developing into a useful article. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Probably not going to be expanded, not particularly interesting.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Leave the work to websites which have a lot of editors who are passionate about creating articles like these. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 18:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Keeping this was predicated on it being expanded not to suck. This hasn't happened. And anything TVTropes beats us so thoroughly at is probably not worth keeping - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Category:Islam topics of interest | Result: Speedy close - you don't need to AfD categories[edit]

Category:Islam topics of interest – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Apparently this was used for a section titled "topics of interest" in {{islamnav}}, but that section does not exist anymore. JorisEnter (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

just move the articles out of the category and delete it. You don't have to AfD minor categories. Bicycle^wheel

10:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Southpaw | Result: Funspaced[edit]

Southpaw – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Some random trivia & some inept attempts at humour, barely coming close to the site missions at all. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

It's entirely unclear what you think is wrong or funspaceworthy about this - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The article is 90% jokes about left-handedness. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 12:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Needs to become a folklore article. Different cultures have generated all sorts of interesting woo about left-handedness, and the article ought to be refocused on that. What's there is a reasonable stub. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It needs expanded but there's oodles of material. Scientists seem to be trying to work out whether everything in the world is correlated with lefthandedness - is this sensible or madness?[9][10] Skeptoid has a good article.[11] As mentioned, there's a long history of attempts to treat or punish lefties. Also myths about whether southpaws are more creative or die sooner. And apparently lefties are more likely to be paedophiles.[12] Won't somebody think of the children? Annquin (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Move to funspace. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 00:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I think so too. Spud (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I'm in two minds. On the one hand prejudice against left-handed people is long over, and therefore we don't need an article. On the other we could use it to show how a prejudice dies out - and so it could be useful. Flannan Isle (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Brogressive | Result: Returned to December 2015 state[edit]

Brogressive – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

I don't think this page is very missional. It basically boils down to criticizing people who would normally be considered moderates because they don't support certain social justice topics. The page also seems to be unable to decide if it should criticize the term or endorse it as a legit term. I think the talkpage has a lot of good arguments against this page.Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC) 04:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
yeah, bin this, it had its chance not to suck - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete, people are making fun of us because of this. Pizzameister (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
People make fun of our articles all the time it's just this seems like a parody.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC) 22:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Kill it, this is a rather dumb term of abuse.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 21:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

But keep it as a criticism of the term. FuzzyCatPotato of the Petrifying Oozes (talk/stalk) 20:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Idk if there is much material you can get from this term besides criticizing it as an overly divisive term.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC) 20:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
"Criticizing it as a divisive term" was pretty much the thesis of my most preferred vision, which also show various you-know-whos making hilarious prats of themselves (and an example of where the stereotype comes from), and being oddly obsessed with Seth McFarlane. This version at least tries to be missional, showing an oddly totalitarian mindset that makes no sense if you're trying to achieve social change in the real world. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
What's totalitarian about it? Withoutaname (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The idea that you have to agree with every item on the agenda to count as an ally. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 21:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
totalitarian /tōˌtaləˈterēən/ adjective 1. of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

You might get criticized as being a very ineffective ally, but this hardly involves government interference or complete subservience. So I'll repeat, what's totalitarian about it? Withoutaname (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Preferably towards the earlier version listed below. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
If we can have "regressive left" then we can have this one too. Typhoon (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Brogressivism plays an importan role in identity politics and the push for greater equality.Tuxer (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Earlier versions of the page, which attempted to analyze how this silly word was being used, should also be considered. The current text is utterly unlike those versions. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah several other users and I tried to argue that there was a good way to use for this term, but it ended up being a parody of the original version.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC) 20:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
So there are three Keep voters who would prefer to revert the article back to its original version. Assuming all of the delete voters would support this would that mean this case is closed?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 18:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I suppose that would work.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dittohead | Result: Merged into Rush Limbaugh[edit]

Dittohead – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not clearly missional, and likely fallacious (ad hom). Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Wait, how are conservative pundits "not clearly missional"? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Being an idiot conservative isn't really enough to be fundamentalist or pseudoscientific. Moreover, it's essentially ad hominem / loaded language -- surely RW shouldn't support the term? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Why not? RW was founded to criticise conservative idiots. Flannan Isle (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
no it wasnt. Fundamentalists and wingnuts, yes, but thats not the same as conservatives. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure, there's 'reasonable' conservatives too. But those aren't the ones conservative pundits cater to. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Note that I said conservative idiots, not conservatives in general. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Merge to Rush Limbaugh, obv - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Make it a section in Rushbo's own article.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Marian Fitness | Result: Delete[edit]

Marian Fitness – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

"They do not seem to be that important or relevant to this websites mission. Perhaps an article on the group they help fund instead?" Die Züge über alle! 00:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I doubt we need an article on some small business that also happens to be Christian.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Maybe worth mentioning at Corporate Christianity... if even that. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
^--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC) 19:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I find the article to perfectly missional. The question for me is about its length, quality, potential for growth and whether or not there really is much more to say about that particular fitness company or not. If what the article currently says is more or less all that can really be said about it, I'm questioning if the article should stay. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Biblical Gender Roles | Result: Delete[edit]

Biblical Gender Roles – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Landmartian permastub, barely missional, about a blog nobody actually cares about David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Pointless Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
While I might agree this article is somewhat missional in terms of the various topics mentioned in its penultimate sentence, the content is frankly crap, and until/unless someone expands it to something worth keeping, I suggest we scrap it altogether. Hell, it doesn't even manage to convey why this blog merits a hell of shame'ish entry on RW when similar topics are covered in anything from traditional marriage to marital rape to pick-up artist. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

If MRAs are missional, this is missional. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 21:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Missional. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Merge into MRA or the likes? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Merge into MRA. ClickerClock (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Maddox | Result: Kept[edit]

Maddox – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This article doesn't seem very missional. Needs work if it's going to stay I think. Bongolian (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

This article is about a figure who is relative to the clogosphere. Specifically a figure who is a well regarded internet celebrity and an old guard at that. RationalWiki's mission statement is to analyse and refute pseudoscience. There is a lot about Maddox that one can be both critical and supportive about. I admit that this page needs work, but it can evolve into something. ^{— Unsigned, by: RakortheTerrible / talk / contribs}
If only for this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE6jy78tV78 Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 12:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
He is very similar to Penn & Teller with some of his info; he grilled anti-vaxxers but oversimplified the gender gap.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 12:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 12:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Maddox is one of the oldest "Internet celebrities". If we can have articles on random Youtubers I've never heard of, we can have one on him. Maybe give an article more than 24 hours to develop before hauling it to AfD? --Ymir (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove the fanboy slant of the article, add the exploration of his politics (which seem libertarian-ish), a criticism section (for example that he sometimes resorted to arouse his sizable legion of fans into online-harassing people who criticized him by writing a hate mail). ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 08:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Lasha Darkmoon | Result: Deleted[edit]

Lasha Darkmoon – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Once again, this is a case of "We don't need articles about every single nut on the internet." A nobody with a blog is still a nobody. Spud (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
What he said. We also don't need two-line articles about a nobody with a blog.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Nine days later, it's still a two-line stub. Flannan Isle (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

This nomination is way bloody premature, the article was literally created today. Have you considered e.g. discussing it with the creator? A Google on "Lasha Darkmoon" shows plenty of active malignance well beyond a single blog. Give it more than mere hours - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The creator has not bothered to expand it beyond its current two-line-iness, which tends to be an indication of them not going to expand it at all.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Moar cranks! FuzzyCatPotato of the Prepossessing Drain cleaners (talk/stalk) 05:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Super-uncles theory | Result: Merged in Homosexuality[edit]

Super-uncles theory – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Landmartian permastub, non-missional, unlikely ever to be a useful missional article David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Seems only the first sentence remains from Landmartian's initial stub, which he never edited again after its creation. We don't need to delete everything Landmartian had even the slightest involvement in. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
The Super Uncles Theory is missional and noteworthy. It is also discussed academically. ~~Keep.~~ Merge into homosexuality. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep or merge into homosexuality. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 21:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Being created by Landmartian is not enough to have it deleted.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 08:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC) 08:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

It's got decent references and text, but we probably don't need an article about one particular hypothesis for how a tendency to homosexuality could have evolutionary advantages. Either merge into an evolution or homosexuality article or create a new 'hypotheses on the origin of homosexuality' article with some more candidates. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Just going to point out that me and FCP support merging in our Keep votes. That makes 3 for Merge as well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Merge into homosexuality. ClickerClock (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The gay uncle hypothesis has some evolutionary credence. Richard Dawkins for one takes it seriously. Best to merge it to the general article I suppose. AlwaysUnite (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Joining the merger choir. Make it a subsection of homosexuality (leaving a redirect) as it's relevant and ref.ed, but too stubby (and probably a bit too obscure) to merit an article of its own. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Merge methinks. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Merge it into homosexuality.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Compassionate conservatism | Result: Kept[edit]

Compassionate conservatism – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

It seems to be a non-missional stub. Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC) 01:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Not accurate (term dates back to the 70s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassionate_conservatism), but not worth revising. How about a "Funspace" for "Compassionate Conservatives" with:

Read-Write (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Not very good, but missional. This is an actual phrase which comes into currency whenever anyone points out conservatives in power acting like sociopaths - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Completely missional, just needs expanding a ~~bit~~ lot more. Although I feel this term is used a lot more in British politics, e.g. linking into "One Nation" Conservatism, paternalism and pragmatism – as opposed to cold, heartless Thatcherism. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 20:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
In other words, just what I "goated" earlier today (I changed the Wikipedia hyperlink text to one-nation Toryism). ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that after I already commented. Sorry about that (and thanks). – AOAPJM ^(talk) 18:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Typhoon (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Currently the article doesn't present an accurate view of the topic's mainstream usage, which is associated with the likes of George W Bush and David Cameron. It should be possible to write an article on this, which is a missional topic. Sources.[13][14][15][16] Annquin (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I added a quote and some text which hopefully combines fact with snark. It could do with more on the US history of the term. Annquin (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This appears to be a thing.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Merge with conservative.ClickerClock (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd vote that we merge the content into a fitting article, unless somebody can extend the current stub instead. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I'm not really sure what the article is trying to say. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
If no one expands on this article, I suggest it's killed off, though perhaps the sourced stuff can go to the Dubya article. If someone cares enough to expand it, it's definitely missional enough to warrant both a keep and a separate article. Obvious avenues for expansion would be John Major's effort to repair the Tories' Tatcherite image as "the nasty party", which was essentially repeated with David Cameron's "Big Tent" conservatism (having in common that neither really did much beyond flowery prose and the kind of legislation that doesn't cost anything). This could also be contrasted with other types of conservatism which tend toward a less exclusive focus on tax cuts and supply side economics, e.g. the types found in continental Europe (especially Germany), or, for that matter in the UK and US prior to the ascension of saints Thatcher & Reagan. This would tie in with Rockefeller Republican, cloth coat Republican, and Dwight Eisenhower in the US context and the older UK strains such as one-nation Toryism from Disraeli to Heath, as well as various types of paternalistic industrialism. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
As is, it's just a collection of (not especially thoughtful) thoughts. Ŵêâŝêîôîď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
^^^What the Weasel said. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Moi. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft | Result: Kept[edit]

Microsoft – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

I cannot see the missionality of this, it is just a random article on microsoft. Bubba41102 ^{The place where you can scream at me} 19:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Its around the edges, but I can work with it some more, perhaps pad out some of Bill Gate's stuff to make it interesting. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Obviously needs more missional content but I believe there should be enough: MS's over-the-top hostile and paranoid attitude towards free open source software, contradictory opinions from libertarians about the company, NSA backdoors, good (justified and/or paranoid) quotes from Richard Stallman about MS, trying to sell XBox One privacy invasion and DRM as beneficial to the customer, etc. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 07:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Expand.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 10:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC) 10:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Pretty marginal - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
We should change it to an article on Bill Gates and the conspiracy theories surrounding him and his foundation. Are there any massive conspiracy theories about Microsoft (aside from the Win10 surveillance paranoia)? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Now that is not a bad idea Bubba41102 ^{The place where you can scream at me} 23:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
is Microsoft's anti-competition history missional? Flannan Isle (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed bachelor | Result: deleted[edit]

Confirmed bachelor – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Permastub; only very tangentially related to anti-homosexual popular-culture memes. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any scope for expanding this: it's just a dictionary definition and not missional unless our plan is to have an entry on every vague slur against homosexuals. Annquin (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with the above. Spud (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't look particularly interesting.--JorisEnter (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Basically a form of incel.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 04:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano | Result: Deleted[edit]

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

I don't think this article is relevant. If anything, it looks more like a promotional article than something on-mission. JorisEnter (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I think no good from it. Pippa (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Unless someone expands this article we should just merge his research in the Afrocentric article.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 13:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Merge and redirect to black supremacy - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Ditto. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Merge to afrocentrism Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Merge to one of the above. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Merge on, you crazy diamonds. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
If he's specifically debunking Clyde Winters, then merge with that, otherwise to afrocentrism (seems to be more on the spot in terms of relevance than black supremacy). ScepticWombat (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Is it edible? Let's find out! Read-Write (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Primary election | Result: Kept with MOAR GOAT note[edit]

Primary election – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Non missional Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Hipocrite apparently needs some attention.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
This does a pretty good job of breaking down primary elections.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 02:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty well complete for the moment; in fact, the Nominating convention part ought to be split off into a separate article. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 01:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Just needs goat is all. --Read-Write (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

It's already on RW:DUP. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 21:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I must say I'm unconvinced. What does this offer that the equivalent cluster of Wikipedia articles doesn't? - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It is an examination of authoritarianism -- how voter's primary preference choice is circumvented through higher level closed-door caucuses. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 18:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's the guts of the matter in Primary_election#Reform_and_counter-reform_attempts that would help strengthen the argument made in Southern strategy: the Democratic reform & counterreform movements between 1970 & 1982 drove the George Wallace crossover voters out of the Democratic party through its recommendations to eliminate the seating of delegates at a national convention selected in open primary states without a publicly recorded declaration of party affiliation (more on the Admany study, later). Republicans embraced them by not adopting these same rules. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 19:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing | Result: Kept[edit]

Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

~~Stub -- last updated in 2013, appears unlikely to grow. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 13:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)~~

Keep[edit]

Given that rationalwiki is the first google result that accurately the describes the journal as what it is, even a brief summary might spare some poeple from mistakenly believing it's serious science. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't at all see why being a short, unchanging article makes it a candidate for deletion. ħuman 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Missional, useful and informative. Being short is not a deletion reason. This is a bad nomination - David Gerard (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
All right, sounds fair. FuzzyCatPotato of the Mirthful Embryos (talk/stalk) 20:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
FCP has been expanding it, so I suppose this can be archived?--JorisEnter (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
How many other articles have these knuckleheads deleted solely because they're short? How many were deleted based on the "consensus" of two or three towering intellects and paragons of critical thinking like FCP and Assistant Professor Enter? Conscience (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Go away. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I repeat the first question. The second is way over your head, little boy. Conscience (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Have a look through this.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

It's marginally better than not having an article at all, some might argue, though it could really do with a sentence or two more. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- But who will put the bell on the cat? (Maybe me, I'll see if I can't do some "examples of fringe work" later today). ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism | Result: Vandalized to oblivion[edit]

Vandalism – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Permastub Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 04:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I can't see how this is missional.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 05:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Meh, not interesting.--JorisEnter (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Pandemic | Result: Kept[edit]

Pandemic – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

A general term that we don't need to define here. Non-missional, stub and an orphan at that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any missionality is having an article which is just a plain definition of a term. Flannan Isle (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Uh, fuck you no. The article is fine, inoffensive, and can(and maybe one day will be) expanded with the conspiracy theory/apocalypse bullshitting connections. I see no compelling reason to remove this article. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
(FYI I'm not saying I'm inoffensive). ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow, so that tone was a little uncalled for... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I know. Sorry. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Conspiracy buffs are always whining about the next pandemic. FuzzyCatPotato of the Forgotten Flans (talk/stalk) 20:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Whining about pandemics, absolutely - though rarely by the general term "pandemic", but by the specific buzzword names of certain diseases - e.g. Swine flu, AIDS or Ebola - all of which we cover well in their own respective articles. Further, the crank position on pandemics as a whole is by and large not different from the mainstream view - the woomeisters aren't here to discuss the existence or non-existence of pandemics as a concept. Even the ones who critizise herd immunity and other epidemic-oriented concepts are covered under our anti-vaxxer articles. Germ theory denialism is also covered already. I submit to you that this article adds little as it stands, though I'm not questioning that it could be grown to its own article in theory. But we can't sit here arguing on the theoretical basis of unwritten text - I say delete, and sure, in the theoretical scenario - let someone recreate it if they can actually make it contain anything of note to us. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The net benefit, though: pandemic can centralize all of the arguments, currently each existing alone, about how most claims about "IMPENDING PANDEMIC!!! EVERYONE WILL DIE!!! BUY GOLD!!!" are false. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but that's the thing though - the doomsday preppers and goldbugs don't see it as them crying "PANDEMIC!". They instead cry "X IS IMPENDING!!! EVERYONE WILL DIE!!! BUY GOLD!!!", where X is the name of a specific disease that they think is likely to be the one that tips out of control. And we cover all those alarms in their own articles. I mean, it's not like I don't see the theoretical utility of a pandemic article. But the case right now is that we basically don't have a pandemic article, and practically nothing else links to it. What's worse, the little stub of text we do have is exactly the type of definitional text we just don't do here. Let's argue for or against the existing actual text, no more or less. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
This is how Gaia will finally get her monkey-mange under control. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 22:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
A post-antibiotic world is absolutely possible.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 22:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget pandemic woo. (Homeopathy MP3s will save us from ebola!!) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

To quote FCP above: "The net benefit, though: pandemic can centralize all of the arguments, currently each existing alone, about how most claims about "IMPENDING PANDEMIC!!! EVERYONE WILL DIE!!! BUY GOLD!!!" are false.". What say you that we actually make that happen? Do we merge the existing individual potential pandemic disease articles into this new main pandemic article? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Template:Intelligent design | Result: Deleted[edit]

Template:Intelligent design – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The template is hardly used anymore (I've cleaned up the last bits an hour or so ago) and it's also pretty ugly. Besides, {{crebox}} satisfies all the needs this one was supposed to do, apart perhaps from the "teach the controversy" stuff - we might add that to the crebox as well. JorisEnter (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure. FuzzyCatPotato of the Queer Hairballs (talk/stalk) 23:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
No reason to keep it. Spud (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Adoption | Result: Delete[edit]

Adoption – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Non-missional, Landmartian dropping David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
~~Appears non-missional, and it's hardly an article anyways.~~ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't look like there's anything substantive in there Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Normally, I'd vote for a merger, but this stub has nothing to add to the gay adoption article and no ref.s either, so I think it can be safely vaporised. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Anything good goes to gay adoption. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 21:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
What FCP said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Second that. ClickerClock (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

April 2016[edit]

Rain | Result: dab[edit]

Rain – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Would be better as a disambiguation page. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
While it is incredibly common, both here in the Netherlands and across the sea, it's not what I'd call missional. Not to mention its crappy stubbiness.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Would be better as a nonexistent page - David Gerard (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC) 05:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
What a crap page! Spud (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to British Isles. Flannan Isle (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Funspace, perhaps? Flannan Isle (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there's nothing funny in it. (Other than the picture caption.) αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
It should fit right in then :) Flannan Isle (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Suggest redirect to global flood. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Marina Watanabe | Result: Moved to RW:Websites[edit]

Marina Watanabe – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The page is short and crappy and a stub. I doubt it will be expanded much, and tbh do we really need a page on every YouTuber that makes videos related to feminism/gender stuff alive? JorisEnter (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Assuming the claims in the current "article" can be sourced and expanded on rather significantly, it could become a useful article. If that doesn't happen, however, this short unsourced stub isn't worth keeping. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Drive-by creation by a BoN. I don't think anyone will ever edit it to make it informative. And I don't think we need articles on every single YouTuber who expresses opinions against or in favour of crank ideas. Spud (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

An entry in the most relevant list of websites should be enough, shouldn't it? Flannan Isle (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
^--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC) 19:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Merged it. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Cotton ceiling | Result: Delete[edit]

Cotton ceiling – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

There's not really much of value here, no indication that this is even a remotely common phrase, and what little useful information is here seems easily merged into various sections of Transmisogyny. It's not even well written either, the TERF paragraph and Reddit thing is well-nigh impenetrable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The page is filled with things like "the hateful belief" and other weird statements. Also does not seem particularly interesting.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete the article, remove the drama and probably add the remaining two sentences to Transmisogyny or something.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 19:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hard to understand, has strange statements. K O M F 20:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Terrible. Wėąṣėḷőįď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The sole reference does not include the phrase "cotton ceiling". Anything coherent in this mess, which appears to have been written in anger, can go into the TERF, Trans-panic etc articles. Flannan Isle (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The article is really bad, but this is a concept that doesn't fit well in most of the trans related articles. We don't have a trans panic article btw.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 22:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
For mostly the same reasons I don't judge actual transgender people, I'm not willing to judge people who find them unappealing, either. There's something creepy about the underlying concept, which seems to say that people have a right to the sexual attention of others unwilling to give it. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
From what I understand the cotton seiling is more about how trans people are denied access to the higher ecehlons of soceity then not wanting to have a romantic or sexual relationship with them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 02:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
That may be, but it doesn't seem to be what the current text is about: a limitation imposed by transphobic cis lesbians who refuse to date or have sex with lesbian transwomen under the hateful belief that they're really men. It also applies to men that refuse to have sex with transwomen once they find out they have penises. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Horribly written but may be converted into a missional article at some time Pizzameister (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Expand it and mention the glass ceiling.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 20:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
It's about an actual thing, just needs moar - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Honestly, I think this article is as simplistic about sexual orientation as the gender binary is about gender. Different people are attracted to different things. For some people their partner having a dick (or not) is a non-issue, for some it's a deal-breaker. Arbitrarily labeling all of the latter as transphobic is unhelpful to anyone. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
+1 --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 20:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Certainly doesn't help the wiki or our mission. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Cyanocobalamin | Result: caught in a landslide, no escape from deletion[edit]

Cyanocobalamin – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Too stubby.n αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Being a stub is not a problem. Everything starts as a stub. The problem is that it has nothing obvious to do with the mission statements.--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
--JorisEnter (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Stub + no obvious missionality. Bongolian (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I couldn't find any significant woo.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC) 22:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Not missional. And it is a terribly stubby stub. It's only slightly longer than the "See also" description that links to it here. That's like a bad parody of wiki linking. And I don't think that starting an article by writing one sentence and expecting the wiki fairies to create the rest is something we should encourage. Spud (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

You don't want to start with one line and let the "wiki fairies" create the rest, so we should start with ZERO lines and expect the wiki fairies to create the rest? That doesn't sound very rational.--Kittycat (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If you can't write more than one sentence about something, then you shouldn't create the article. It's better to have nothing at all than an unhelpful stub. The better option is to wait for somebody else to create the article, rather than you creating an article about something you know next to nothing about. Spud (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

The only article linking it is Laetrile. Does this have any relevance to that? - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Laetrile contains cyanide and is called "vitamin" B₁₇, so I put a link to a real vitamin containing cyanide. And then I created the page for it.--Kittycat (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Maybe there is altie woo about it; I will look, but otherwise delete it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC) 16:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Well I found this at NaturalNews, but it I don't know what to make of it. It appears to argue against Cyanocobalamin because it isn't natural and *gasp* has cyanide molecules. Most of the article, though, talks about vitamin B12 deficiency.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC) 16:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Why was this AfD'd instead of instadeleted? Honestly guys, there's 'promising stub', 'stub that could turn into something moderately interesting' and then there's this... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:58, 24 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Jair Bolsonaro | Result: Keep[edit]

Jair Bolsonaro – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This was obviously written by a Brazilian whose English isn't that great. I've tried to proofread and correct this. But I just don't understand the paragraph about him running for president. Spud (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Horribly written and I doubt anyone is going to improve this.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The article not neat.Redbull horns (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

He has been getting coverage in English-language press[17][18], and seems a singularly unpleasant character with lots of colourful quotes. I'm not an expert on Brazilian politics but I'll have a look at it. Annquin (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I've rewritten most of it, found more sources, and added lots of hilarious quotes. Annquin (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fully readable - now, atleast. This sounds fully missional, although the article needs more work. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I withdraw my vote for deletion and declare this a keeper. Spud (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Bulverism | Result: No consensus[edit]

Bulverism – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The specific combination of ad hominem and appeal to motive expressed by "Bulverism" is not only quite rare, but would be called out for one of the component fallacies long before anyone looks this word up. Furthermore, the examples given do not even fit the description, being composed of circular arguments and ad hominems instead. I provided a more detailed explanantion on the article's talk page, and ZooGuard's comment is also helpful. I see no purpose for this page, not even as a curiosity. Aeonian (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
To FCP; maybe I'm being pedantic, but the definition seems too specific to be of any use. In your examples, for instance, couldn't those be more correctly described as simple ad hominems? I see them often as well, but only in the context of trying to dismiss the person criticizing their idea. "Bulverism" is defined as using the ad hominem as an argument in and of itself, which I never see, not even in the examples on the page. And even in a case that fits the description, circular reasoning, ad hominem, and appeal to motive are all just as accurate, and much more well known. Again, I think this is just way too specific and obscure to be considered a fallacy in and of itself. See the talk page for more on this.Aeonian (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
That's why I agree with DG that Bulverism should instead be merged into ad hom. It seems to me that it's simply an elaborate, extreme and not very prevalent version of the far more common ad hom. I agree that Bulverism is far too specific to merit an article of its own. The problem with the examples of the page is that they conform to the brief format used in other RW articles, whereas Bulverisms don't, by definition, consist of such terse statements, but of an ad hom + claims about why the antagonist holds these beliefs, a style which is hard to squeeze down into one liners without the examples becoming "simple" ad homs. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
It's one of the articles that was on my infinitely long list of "crap articles to clean up". If it remains in the current state, it's better for the article not to exist. I'm willing to switch my vote if someone rewrites the article and brings it up to something resembling an informative article. A hint: try the "what C.S. Lewis actually wrote" angle, not the "logical fallacy subtype #5289, I'm so smart to know them all" angle.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Typhoon (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

It's a really interesting idea because I see it so often. Instead of attacking other peoples ideas, I see people attack the source of their ideas -- oh, you're just a brainwashed kid/liberal/etc. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
What you describe a generic argument ad hominem/well-poisoning, not exactly what Lewis meant by "Bulverism".--ZooGuard (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I also see it often, and also in other shapes (it could perhaps be described by an overarching principle, or better sourced). There is actually a ton more with first and second order confusions. ~ Aneris ✻ 23:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
See it often and unfortunately have drempt of using it myself as well. It certainly is missions and hits some good points. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

To argumentum ad hominem - David Gerard (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
^What DG said. This seems like a specific (sub)variant of ad hom, "going all in", so to speak, so that the ad hom and elaboration on it and the purported personal reasons behind the antagonist's opinions become the entire argument. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
To straw man. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
This article is basically restating the contents of straw man and ad hominem. Divide it up into those two articles (and/or relevant others), otherwise delete. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Merge! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Santorum | Result: Moved to Funspace[edit]

Santorum – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Move to funspace[edit]

Funspace worthy. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree, it should be put in funspace. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I forgot we had this but I agree this is funspace worthy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 00:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-> FUNFUNFUN - David Gerard (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Not interesting enough for mainspace, probably funworthy indeed.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Block Together | Result: Deleted[edit]

Block Together – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not clearly missional. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Clearly not missional, except maybe as a sentence in Twitter. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Highly doubtful if at all missional. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Jumping on another band wagon here. The article is of dubious missionality, stubby, low quality and confusing to boot (really, what's the point of it?). Vaporise it. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Burn it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't see why this is missional.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Less than 24 hours for the AFD, no notification of the original writer and then it's just gone. The hell people?! I put together this article to explain the point of why people seem pre-emptively blocked on twitter and soforth. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 04:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. Can you explain why this wouldn't fit as a section in Twitter? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

To Twitter or Gamergate (maybe) - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Drunken Peasants | Result: Merged into TheAmazingAtheist[edit]

Drunken Peasants – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Does anyone care about promoting TheAmazingAtheist's podcast? Is there anyone who cares whose brain isn't already numbed by his videos? David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Fancruft puff piece. Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
This was my first official article, and it wasnt that good. Its also strange that I requested it to be deleted a while back but its still up for some reason. Also, it isnt an "ad" nor is it "fanboy content". Sierra Nav (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Any TAA material should go to TAA, have pages on each of its members, and make it a disambiguation. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep This article is valuable! If you don't like the tone, edit it! 79.194.2.66 (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Alternately, a mergey redirect to TheAmazingAtheist may well be suitable - David Gerard (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Merge it into the article. He may be an asshole, no disagreement, but he's an relevant asshole and this podcast of his deserves at the very least a short mention in his article.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC) 20:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
It is a notable podcast, but since he is the most notable person on it it should be merged to his page.--Owlman (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
What are you guys actually suggesting gets merged? Once you strip away the fanboy content (i.e. the reason why it's been nominated for deletion) all you're left with is the fact that TAA & a couple of other guys host a podcast. Wėąṣėḷőįď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Merge with the jerk's page. ClickerClock (talk) 08:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Merge seems better. Why are we using bullets instead of numbers? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
If ballots won't work, bullets will. Wėąṣėḷőįď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Merging seems reasonable. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Merge to TAA with redirect. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
What they said. Typhoon (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Changing my vote to give the mob more powah. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
See the above comments.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Auxiliary language | Result: Keep[edit]

Auxiliary language – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

~~#What exactly has this to do with the RW mission? If there is kookery associated with that, it fails to mention it. [[User:Pizzameister|Pizzameister](talk) 19:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)~~

Barely missional; fold into another article is feed be. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be just barely hinted that auxilliary languages exist to serve some rational purpose - perhaps to "rationalise" communications. Is that really enough to justify this article? probably not. Flannan Isle (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to have anything missional. There might be kookery around constructed languages specifically, but not auxiliary languages, and there's nothing in this article to say so either. Annquin (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Does not appear to be missional. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I realize I'm probably whistling into the wind here, but this is one of the great pipe dreams of a certain segment of the human race, and one of the subjects that will keep minor cranks burning the midnight oil. It's a subject that's bound together with simplistic ideas about how to bring about world peace, and as such missional. There have been dozens of these proposed, some more interesting than others. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 23:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it does a good job at explaining why people in academia tried popularize Esperanto and Volapük.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC) 04:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it's missional, for the reasons SoT explained. It does need to be expanded, and certainly can be, but it is missional. Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Keepworthy, I think. A foolish idea that cranks keep pursuing sounds right up our alley - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Dump the salvageable bits/interesting trivia in a subsection on "other auxiliary languages" (or something like it) in Esperanto. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I've expanded the article with more observations about Volapük and Esperanto, and will move on to some of the odder proposals when I can dig out some of those books. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 21:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
It might be saved, but I remain whether it has anything to do with the mission Pizzameister (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I kind of think it should be moved/reworked to focus mainly on constructed languages ("conlangs"), as that's where the real deposit of pseudolinguistics woo lies (ideas about creating some "perfect", "rational" language, etc.). --Ymir (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Working on just that. This is going to take some time, especially if the article is going to be actually informative. The first problem is that the audience for this sort of thing is amateur language makers themselves. This audience is exactly wrong: everybody thinks that they can make the proposal better. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If you voted to delete this before the 14th, I'd ask that you take another look so we can move forward here. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

TruthWiki | Result: move to to do list[edit]

Delete[edit]

It's a short, crappy stub that's utterly uninformative and useless. JorisEnter (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
It's missional but not widely viewed whatsoever. It's worth RW's time to focus on other sites. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
We don't need articles on every single crank website in existence. We don't need articles on obscure ones like this. When I did a Google search for "truthwiki", the site didn't even turn up until the second page. Spud (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

It ought to be expanded, if it's missional. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks missional to me. If you don't like that it's a stub, write the rest. Flannan Isle (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems missional, also worth criticizing the fact that it isn't even a wiki, and you can't even make an account. K O M F 20:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

It's missional, but it's also unusably short. Frankly as it stands it's a to do list entry - David Gerard (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree. MarmotHead (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
No lack of missionality - the question is, will our entry on it be reasonably and qualitatively expanded or not? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Missional, but unless someone is willing to put the time and effort into expanding it into a proper, ref.ed article, kill it off. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Category:Articles with funspace counterparts | Result: Keep[edit]

Category:Articles with funspace counterparts – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The whole funspace seems dumb. If you want snark in the articles then add it, but we don't need to duplicate Montana, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, etc. Some of these articles have more info than their non-funspace counterparts.^{— Unsigned, by: Owlman / talk / contribs} 19:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Funspace will live. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Vive le Funspace! Flannan Isle (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Stop it with the de-funning fafuxake Pippa (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Ba dum tss! ScepticWombat (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Owlman hates fun. Typhoon (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Is this the first time someone's afd'd an entire namespace? Flannan Isle (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a "lazyspace" counterpart for editors who can't be bothered to cite sources for their claims. Read-Write (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Brown dwarf | Result: Keep[edit]

Brown dwarf – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

How is this missional, dont see the purpose. Bubba41102 ^{The place where you can scream at me} 00:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

It appears to debunk some woo-ey claims regarding brown dwarfs.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
It's got the woo debunk right in there - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep, but add links to Planet X and Nibiru to here. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Leave it, please. Good to debunk Nibiru-esque claims as stated above. --Panzerfaust (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
An obvious keep in my book. For science! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Another piece of evidence for the thesis that a significant part of RW's current userbase doesn't actually give a fuck about skeptical topics, or when it does, it ignores what misinformation is actually out there, focusing instead on name-calling and back-patting. Planet X/Nibiru was big just a few years ago.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
ZG, that's shit and you should know it. Ignorance != apathy. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Sans Coleman. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Put the woo'tastic elements into Planet X/Nibiru/Velikovsky/Saturn with the explanatory and debunking bits attached. If it's to be kept, it needs to be expanded with a lot more brown dwarf-related woo to illustrate why it merits a separate article. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

It has a "woo" section; doesn't that automatically confer missionality? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The article has nothing wooey about it on its own, it is in like one paragraph and it is more of a footnote in teh article, it is explained well enough in the articles it mentions in the woo section Bubba41102 ^{The place where you can scream at me} 01:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Triggering | Result: Delete[edit]

The Triggering – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Doubts about the relevancy of what is essentially a twitter hashtag have been raised on the talk page Pizzameister (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
We don't need to document every reactionary hashtag. Though this was a better attempt at discussion than just adding to our never ending GG timeline.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC) 04:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I vote delete for Weaseloid reasons. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 06:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
As much as I love pointing and laughing at neoreactionaries, this just doesn't seem relevant enough. Vulpius (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Was such a damp squib that it'll be forgotten by next month. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
We don't need an article on every ephemeral hashtag. We don't even have one on #notallmen, which was much bigger than this eyeblink. Flannan Isle (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

A short mention on the Timeline of Gamergate is all this deserves. Typhoon (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure it's really Gamergate as such. I mean, it's obviously much the same cluster of idiots, but not identically the same and not really a GG action - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I'd never heard of this before. Having read the article, I still don't know what it is/was. It looks like the article was written for people already familiar with this campaign, telling them what they probably already know. If the intent was actually to explain something to readers not already familiar with this thing, I don't think it's succeeded. Щєазєюіδ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I find myself unconvinced, though it's hilariously stupid - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not a big or important thing, but it's missional insofar as documenting the actions of wacky hatemongering anti-SJW types is missional, which seems to be the case. The article itself is of reasonable quality although it's not Samuel Johnson Prize material. If there's a viable merge candidate, then merge, but it's not quite GG (maybe some other SJW topic? Trigger warning?). Does Lauren Southern "deserve" an article? Annquin (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I've just seen it's in the "clogs" wigo page. Maybe that's all that we have to do for coverage. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind keeping it, I think... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

High speed rail | Result: Keep[edit]

High speed rail – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This article is well written and rather complete, but what does it have to do with Pseudo-science? Pizzameister (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Nuthin'. Wēāŝēīōīď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
could be good if the 'wingnut arguments' against weren't a massive strawman. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Relevant due to US's weird allergy to rail - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep for the same reason. I think opposition to high speed rail is anti-science.Petey Plane (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep it, it's about wingnuts fighting against a very good idea out of stupid reasons and that seems very much missional.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The US right tends to oppose HSRs because they see it as environmentalists taking away their 'freedom' to drive.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 17:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Which is fucking retarded. No-one's gonna take away their cars, if people gonna have a high speed rail--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 17:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  - "fucking retarded" - don't forget he was talking about US wingnuts. Fucking retarded is how they roll. Flannan Isle (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It may not be the most politically charged article I've read here, but it certainly helped me understand what my country is missing out on due to the efforts of deranged lunatics. One of my favorites because of that. Daftpunk909 (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an important social issue. Feminists would have you believe that high-speed rail is just a more efficient means of transportation, but actually it's part of a subtler agenda to undermine the institution of the family and achieve female dominance. A transportation system based on automobile travel encourages the preservation of the traditional nuclear family unit, since the family members can save money by car-pooling as they go on family vacations, etc. The man's role as driver of the car symbolizes his leadership of the family. But the train is a more egalitarian mode of the travel that also requires each family member to buy a separate ticket, eliminating part of the financial deterrent to a divorce that will break up the family. Ultimately, high-speed rail is just one aspect of a larger agenda intended to thoroughly fuck men over in every way possible, and therefore it's unsurprising that pro-feminist political parties on the left, such as green parties in various European countries, have jumped on board the idea of shifting funds from roads to rail construction. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
MREs say the darnedest things. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't FSTDT have a section on them, too?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 14:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
No. It has been proposed many times, but never implemented.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, there's another article about the Hyperloop concept that is arguably a form of pseudoscience (or at least science woo), and I think it kind of makes sense to have an article about what it's supposedly going to replace, especially since Wikipedia's article on the topic doesn't say much about why HSR never got the go-ahead in the US. TheSocktor (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The Hyperloop a form of pseudoscience? What do you mean by that? Pizzameister (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
They mean they phrased that really badly. Either that, or another nail in the coffin of "pseudoscience" as a useful term.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Choo choo! ScepticWombat (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Relevant to edumacate Americans on the boons of rail technology, while also being a rather comprehensive and well-written article as it stands. Though I do agree with FPC's goat, that it - and I interpret freely here - needs to be adapted to fit the mission better. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Typhoon (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Move it to Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Redirect all mentions to HPR section. Plutoniumboss (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Needs rewrite to focus on shitty counterarguments. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 17:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Salzburg Conference for Young Analytic Philosophy | Result: Deleted[edit]

Salzburg Conference for Young Analytic Philosophy – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

How is this missional?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 18:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems like some sort of silly promotional article.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it covers pseudoscience; the article certainly does not. FuzzyCatPotato of the Unsophisticated Bingos (talk/stalk) 19:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I say, "This article reads like an advertisement." Spud (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Questioning too. Doubting it's an advertisement though, since it takes only five seconds to find out why the acronym is SOPhiA instead of SCYAP ("Salzburgiense Concilium Omnibus Philosophis Analyticis"). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Sounds nice and all, but how is this missional? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
PR... ScepticWombat (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fun:Guinness | Result: the wankers have been beaten off[edit]

Fun:Guinness – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Merge at best. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Why was this even made?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 22:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Guinness is good for you! Flannan Isle (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
No reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
FCP is a wanker Pippa (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Its a fun article, we don't normally delete those Bubba41102 ^{The place where you can scream at me} 01:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Bubba: But... but... RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Fun:Bizarro_Kansas Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
That was an exception, you need to have a guiness. Bubba41102 ^{The place where you can scream at me} 01:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
--Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Eh, why? And I don't even drink Guinness... ScepticWombat (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
FCP and Owlman are party-poppers. Typhoon (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Bolton Wanderers!

Well, the article is crap, but that's never stopped us before... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo | Result: Keep[edit]

Kosovo – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Badly written, what purpose does it serve? Pizzameister (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Why was this closed after only two days? Pizzameister (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Short, but don't see anything notably bad about the writing. Just needs a bit of expansion. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:21, 9 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
There is definitely plenty of missional material here we can mention: the Kosovo war, then KLA (who harvested Serb organs), Albanian-Serb Kosovar relations, Islamic extremism, Albanian irredentism, and how its independence became an excuse for Putin to invade and ~~annex~~ "recognize" parts of Georgia and Ukraine.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 23:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
A lot of shit has happened there. It definitely needs some expansion though.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It should be kept and expanded.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 00:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Kosovo exists, and so will this article. Typhoon (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep 'n expand (not the country, the article...). An article on Kosovo is also relevant due to its status as a case of "humanitarian intervention" (i.e. the Nato bombings of Serbia) without a UN mandate that was a hot button issue at the time and cited as a precedent for interventions sans UN mandates ever since. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Needs more on the mythical status of Kosovo which is the Serbian equivalent of the Lost Cause of the South (minus the slavery, perhaps). Wikipedia has a page on wp:Kosovo Myth which discusses some things that should be in the article. Annquin (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I've added a bit on the 1389 battle, truth and myth. Annquin (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep, especially for a Kosovo War section as it has much potential for interesting material: first time the Germany has been involved in an armed conflict since 1945; first time a stealth fighter was shot down; religious aspects to the war; claims of genocide and its repudiation + analysis of how well statements of both sides hold up to reality. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 20:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Keeparoni. Important article for all reasons stated above, and more. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Category:Bullshit | Result: No Consensus[edit]

Category:Bullshit – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

A category that, if applied consistently, would cover at least 50% of RW's articles, which makes it useless as a category, since it's inclusion doesn't convey any additional information - if something is bullshit, the article itself should make that clear - and it doesn't help the user find other articles within a specific topic. Like many of the old categories, it's used mostly as a form of editorial comment, and like many other forms of editorial comments on RW, it has the subtlety of a hammer. ZooGuard (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
"The subtlety of a hammer" was bad wording on my part, me lapsing into a cliche. I should have guessed that some people here would consider it a compliment. What I tried to express was: adding something to the "Bullshit" category and putting piped links to Bullshit is easy, actually explaining why it's bullshit and convincing people it's bullshit is hard. The category is a part of a larger problem with a certain ethos widespread on RW that might have been benign in RW's early days, but now it has developed into cancer. --ZooGuard (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
*snaps fingers appreciatively at cancer pun* 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
See the above by ZG.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Meh.--Owlman (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
From orbit! FuzzyCatPotato of the Pyrrhic Echinoids (talk/stalk) 20:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
ZooGuard has a plausible case. ~ Aneris ✻ 23:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes! Too many bullshit categories! Read-Write (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Why is the feng shui page in the bullshit category but the qi page isn't? Read-Write (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Terrible, stupid and not useful - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
In many cases this category seems to be overly applied and adds nothing to the article. For example, the article on Wayne LaPierre is a "Bullshit-related stub." As if it's not clearly obvious the he is batshit crazy and one of many insufferable assholes, the bullshit tag is dumped on as well. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
So maybe it should be removed from that article? ħuman 03:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Too vague, shoot it.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Not particularly useful; definitely not funny (it's a different topic but some of the bullshit link piping is equally unfunny and overused). You obviously can put too many articles in a category: for instance, people would rightly object if I created Category:Articles and proceeded to add every article on the wiki to that category, and a category that could cover half our articles at a conservative estimate (not that we like those here) is almost as useless. Subcats can turn into cats if "Bullshit" is their only common underlying theme. —Bilorv (needs a slap) 23:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
A broad category that could encompass basically every article here. Nuke it from orbit, I say!брэндэн (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

--Castaigne2 (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I, for one, like the (un)subtlety of a hammer. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
In quasi-rebuttal to ZooGuard's comment above, only half of the RW articles? Perfect then. Someone may prefer to peruse them at their leisure, uninterrupted by forays into social issues and our articles about things that aren't bullshit. I say keep it. Another argument in favor of keeping it is that so many articles have been placed in it by previous editors. Undoing all their work and effort with the stroke of a bot seems like little more than the vendetta of a bored bot-writer. ħuman 03:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I now see one argument for deletion and three for keeping it, by the way. ħuman 03:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I would be most pleased to remove the category via hand-made artisanal organic free-range edits, lovingly and individually crafted, if that would make you feel better - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Or you could just leave it alone, in a gently fondling passive-aggressive manner. ħuman 03:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Same reasons as .236 up there. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Rooted in RW's origin story, and not so broken that it needs fixing. I mistrust any tendency to make the wiki's tone blander and more palatable. The mission is not about the taxonomy of "implements for geological redistribution, air cooled, manually operated." It is about calling things what they are. SmartFeller (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not a question of "making the wiki blander and more palatable". I am not against humor and calling a spade a spade. The problem is that many, if not most of the attempts at doing both on RW are low effort and low quality. It's often a symptom of lazy writing, or worse, lazy thinking. And humor and "humor" should not impede usability.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Cogent points, and you make a persuasive argument above. Gotta respect how your perspective extends through the epochs of RW history. Still, I don't think it is so broken that it needs fixing. In the spirit of "don't hang me, hang that fellow behind the tree" I would suggest "unremitting horror" as a scapegoat catgory for removal. I never really understood that one. I think we can keep "insufferable assholes" for now; I'm surprised it hasn't been axed yet, for BLP reasons. SmartFeller (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
"Insufferable assholes" falls under "obviously subjective opinion", which is legally protected. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Works well with subcategories. Where else would you put Category: Silly "Earth" theories, for instance? Annquin (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Typhoon (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
What possible harm can there be in putting a load of articles in any category? Unless, of course, the categorisation is at fault. FCP seems to think that his RW editing muscles will atrophy if he doesn't exercise them often enough. (I know it wasn't FCP who started this deletion request but FCP started it in the saloon - he^(?) is a wanker.) Pippa (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
alas, I am slain -- a wanker oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It actually started as an off-hand complaint by David Gerard. Another user who shared the same opinion about the category started a thread on the Saloon Bar. A third user who shared the same opinion decided that it would be more productive to make an actual deletion discussion.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
So now an off-hand complaint, taken up by our resident busybody with poor judgement, is worthy of chasing around the tree. ħuman 03:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
A good category for miscellaneous bullshit. K O M F 20:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep it! Who doesn't love a little bullshit! On the serious side, we need more articles here, not less. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Overused and vague, but some stuff really is just plain bullshit. Editors should consider before use whether adding certain articles to the category is useful before doing so. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

On the "subcategories" thing: they can either be categories on their own (shocker!) or fit into other categories, such as "conspiracy theories" and the various wingnuttery categories (which are at least useful in differentiating kinds of bullshit). FuzzyCatPotato of the Slippery Plagues (talk/stalk) 15:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
What? I know what all those words mean, but I can't understand what you wrote with them. ħuman 03:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Fun:Bizarro Kansas | Result: As empty as the real Kansas[edit]

Fun:Bizarro Kansas – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Bizarro article. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The point of this "Fun" article is, "Kansas is full of ignorant shitkickers." To get to that point apparently requires two and half paragraphs that nobody would expect to find outside of Superman Wiki. Spud (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Wtf is this.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Why does this need to exist? Bubba41102 ^{The place where you can scream at me} 18:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 18:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

From 2007, so probably a valuable insight into the ancient history of RW. Not that anyone cares - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Pseudo Logo History | Result: Deleted[edit]

Pseudo Logo History – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

OK, there's fraud but pseudoscience: I think not. Bongolian (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
unfortunately, copyright fraud != missional αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
A load of badly written wank. It's not pseudohistory if you make stuff up just for purposes of fraud. Finding that the "Actual logo history" external link went to the shitty Logopedia made me want to puke. And the title is capitalized incorrectly. Spud (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what this is supposed to be. Also very badly written (though that might be fixed).--JorisEnter (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Googling "Pseudo Logo History" shows no other results, suggesting there's no such thing. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

There's plausibly a missional article in here, though admittedly I'm not offering to write it - David Gerard (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Paul Begley | Result: Deleted[edit]

Paul Begley – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Reason who'se even heard of him? брэндэн (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
120,000 subscribers? 78 million total views? I'd say that people have heard of him. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Does not look particularly interesting.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Widely viewed, deserves rebuttal. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
He is pretty popular on YouTube. He has 120,000 subscribers; I'd say people have heard of him. I came across him whilst looking at other channels, and he gets several thousand views within the first day of posting a video. Influences the opinions of a lot of people and debunking Christian end times lunacy is right up our alley. This is the most on mission thing we could possibly be doing. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Plausibly missional, but needs to answer "yes but why are you telling me all of this" - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
DG is right, as usual. Spud (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Stuart Landsborough | Result: It's a stub but a keeper[edit]

Stuart Landsborough – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Too much of a stub. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Quite enough to be a useful article - David Gerard (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I think so too. Spud (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Could not this and similar such stubs be gathered together in a single article until such a time there is something to actually say about them? I know this site has no fear monolithic lists as articles. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Paul Kurtz | Result: It's a stub but a keeper[edit]

Paul Kurtz – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Too much of a stub. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Told me something interesting I didn't already know, so passes the "enough to be useful" test - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Seems relevant enough to be kept, but could certainly use some expansion.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Needs expansion rather than nuking. Spud (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Gah, friggen smartphone misclicks... Sorry Joris. Maybe a bit of google-fu will help the article? StickySock (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Harriet Hall | Result: It's a stub but a keeper[edit]

Harriet Hall – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Too much of a stub. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I think so too. Spud (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Short but enough to be useful - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
known person in the a/s movement, but raises the questions what is the point with articles that have better counterparts at the Other Wiki ~ Aneris ✻ 23:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Meh, keep it. I you never know when you might need it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Christy0misty | Result: Deleted[edit]

Christy0misty – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

NOTE: THE AUTHOR MIGHT HAVE A BETTER PAGE VERSION, GIVE IT 24 HRS

Not missional, obscure YouTube vlogger. Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
--JorisEnter (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

24 hours have passed. Nothing interesting appears to have happened.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

--Read-Write (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Pile of crap drop by MRE. Bongolian (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I hope MRE isn't going to create dozens more shitty stubs like this about non-noteworthy people who have supposedly been threatened by feminists Spud (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Is missional. Is a terrible article and appears unlikely to improve. FuzzyCatPotato of the Fanatical Thumbtacks (talk/stalk) 19:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This non-article is more about how "civil/reserve X are wannabe X" than about Christy0misty. MRE is free to write a proper page about this subject, but precisely 0% of what's there now would be helpful for that. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Typhoon (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Deleted. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

i'm so glad you said that, I'd never have guessed from the word "deleted" in the title. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Illiberal left | Result: Kept[edit]

Illiberal left – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

As is, this article would be better off being scrapped outright. It takes a subject of considerable debate within liberal politics, and basically reduces it to "one side is completely 100% right, the other side is entirely concern trolling from conservatives". I don't particularly see the need for an article on the "illiberal left" in the first place, and at any rate, an article like this one does a massive disservice to the concept. As currently presented, this article is nothing more than a character assassination on Jonathan Chait along with a complete misrepresentation of both his ideas and the way those ideas have been received in liberal circles. 174.44.202.247 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The "TL;DR"-summary of that article would be "NO YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111". Put it out of it's misery.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I noticed "regressive left" redirects here, which is a very real phenomena used by New Atheists and similar Enlightenment-esque groups to critique the 'everything goes' postmodernism that the left seems to embrace, especially in Europe. This article, by comparison, is basically one conservative's (Jonathan Chait) opinion of this part of left, which only vaguely resembles the actual criticisms against it. The article then debunks this conservative strawman And...that's about it. The New Atheists are mentioned in one sentence, and then dismissed in the next. The article also has a hilarious SJW bent, with a reference to a Vox.com article to say "ultimately sounded like an out of touch old white man who misunderstands that "PC" is generally just being a decent human being."

~~Essentially, there are valid points from within the left (and occasionally elsewhere) about this topic, and this article does nothing to address them. It's about a particular conservative strawman.~~

I'm thinking of writing a page about the Regressive Left, if I do I'd recommend this page be merged to that one as a part dealing with the conservative viewpoint. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

No reason to delete from driveby IP - David Gerard (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Might need some massaging, but whitewashing the inherent reactionary bent of the term would be silly. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 17:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
--JorisEnter (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
~~Article is as necessary as its need of rewriting. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)~~
Keep, but it does need a reboot. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Typhoon (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Alright, I've created a page on the regressive left, and I suggest this page be merged into it, specifically into the section dealing with the term's use a conservative snarl word. I choose to move to "regressive left" rather than just rewrite "illiberal left" because the former term is much more common, especially among liberals (and this wiki is written from a liberal standpoint).
As for the page itself, I went into detail about the liberal concept of the idea, rather than focusing entirely on its usage as a conservative talking point. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It's good so far, although we could use incorporating some of the snarky tone from the old one. It's use even by some liberals is not well-justified, generally going hand-in-hand with nominally-liberal-but-actually-kinda-racist Sam Harris sort of people. We could stand to emphasise that, but I'm not sure where to put it. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 13:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I focused on the academic definition, so there wasn't as much snark as there could be. Also, much of the snark in the old article was mostly because it assumed the concept was entirely a conservative invention. As for liberal misuse, perhaps we could add a new sub-section dealing with questionable usage?

Also, I never really understood the criticism of Sam Harris and the other New Atheists. Granted, I've never read their books, but I always assumed their main problem was treating Islam as a single block, and insisting on a particularly violent interpretation. I'd say they aren't trying to misconstrue things, but just do because they're looking at Islam from a Western perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong, again I've never read their books, only some of their op-eds and watched some debates.

The real problem is that Arabic critics of Islam, Abdullah al-Qasemi, Abu Isa al-Warraq, Abbas Abdul Noor, etc either haven't been translated or are relatively unknown. We need more critics from the Arab world, instead of having to rely on Westerners like Harris. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Merge. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't merge. The "terms" have different intended meanings/connotations. "Illiberal left" alleges authoritarian tendencies when dealing with dissent, "regressive left" alleges coddling non-progressive ideas, or more precisely, Islam.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
^^^what he said. Merging them would be a mistake. Typhoon (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Their use as snarl words is extremely similar, though. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 22:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I see the distinction, but I don't see why need two separate pages. The regressive left page already says "the term has been extended to encompass any leftist position that appears contradictory to progressive values" which would include authoritarian regimes. Also, the current page on illiberal left barely touches that definition, focusing entirely on the term's use as a snarl word - and the people using the terms as snarl words probably wouldn't know the difference.^{— Unsigned, by: Aeonian / talk / contribs}

Goat[edit]

Kept. FuzzyCatPotato of the Fervent Chromosomes (talk/stalk) 16:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding us of the word "kept" in the title. Flannan Isle (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Mark Edward | Result: Deleted[edit]

Mark Edward – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Too much of a stub. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Spud (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Single line of text says it all.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Deleted. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us that. What would we do without you? Flannan Isle (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Beer? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

beer is a verb now? I like that idea. Let's beer! Flannan Isle (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Fun:G.R.O.S.S. | Result: gross'd out[edit]

Fun:G.R.O.S.S. – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Uh. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Get Rid Of Secret Squirrel! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Should have been posted in the Bar back in 2010. Never should have been a page of its own, not even in Fun space, and shouldn't have been allowed to stay here for nearly six years. Spud (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
??!???--JorisEnter (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Keep the lulz!!!!!11--Kugelschreiber (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
What's the harm, eh? Pizzameister (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fun:Conservative constant | Result: Deleted[edit]

Delete[edit]

Die. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Presumably this was once a reference to some obscure Conservapedia page or Schlafly saying. Meaningless now. Wèàšèìòìď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete: not even vaguely funny. Not much content. Bongolian (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Kill it with fire and a cosmological constant. All hail the Lambda.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Another vote to disappear it. --Read-Write (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

I vote goat, in its current form this article shouldn't be kept, but content should not be grounds for deletion. Pizzameister (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Fun:Evolution | Result: Deleted[edit]

Fun:Evolution – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

It's just... really bad... FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Second. Read-Write (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Unfunny attempt at parody. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this page is doing what it sets out to. Nuke from orbit, start again. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 09:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Really fucking dumb. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Is in the spirit of SPOV. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Bahar Mustafa | Result: overwhelming delete[edit]

Bahar Mustafa – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

No need to add articles for crap that Breitbart/Yiannopoulos/etc get all foamed up over.Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Article about one student in the UK. Became targeted by GG and Yiannopoulos as a "SJW" strawman. At best we could add it as a note to Timeline of Gamergate. Typhoon (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
--Castaigne2 (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A college student tweeting something dumb doesn't deserve its own page.Petey Plane (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
No other page is one college student saying something dumb a single time. For what purpose? Seems like nutpicking at it's finest. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
What the hell is this even doing here? --JorisEnter (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
What the hell was Balaam doing recreating this piece of shit, an attack on a GG target written by a GG troll? And then sysopping said GG troll? (Which I have reversed.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Most of her edits look fine to me. She was here for more than a year with nobody objecting, which seems very strange behaviour for a troll. Balaam (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
ωεαşεζøίɗ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. (Not sure, tho, Tallulah has done anything to make her not mop-worthy? has she been blocked or binned a lot?)---Mona- (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

How exactly, apart from political tendency, is she different from any of the other Internet assholes and threat-makers that we do find missional? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 22:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm open to persuasion. Do you have some examples in mind? And if so, is it possible they also are fit for AfD?---Mona- (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
People here agree with her.Keter (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

A random check of Category:Racism and Category:Racists turned up Nicholas Stix, Serdar Argic, and Egyptsearch as 3 of my first 5 clicks. Those don't seem terribly different, especially not the frothing morons at Egyptsearch. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Just because it's a stub doesn't mean it should be purged for ideological purity. ^{— Unsigned, by: Keter / talk / contribs} 10:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Except that mostly only GGers care about this person for THEIR ideological reasons. Specifically, their obsession with harassing "SJWs". Typhoon (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't know anything about Gamergate, don't care at all about it, and think from viewing the deleted content this merits some mentioning. Seriously, this place would be in a massive lather and collectively creaming its pants several times over if it became a national news story that someone defended a cry to kill all black men as "reclaiming" something. All of which shows you're no better than the conservatives you so haughtily dismiss as narrow minded. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

The SJW page still lacks a "problems" section. *cough* Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I support such a section.---Mona- (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The SJW page has a "problems with the term" section. It doesn't need a "people we think are actual SJWs" section if that's what you're suggesting. It had one previously which was terrible & was removed for all the reasons outlined on the talk page. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. There should be a page for actual examples of moonbattery, that this would fall under. Again, it's a single tweet by a college student. Not sure how that deserves its own page. Petey Plane (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
To clarify: I support a section on what I consider actual wrong and even unhinged positions taken by some people identified as "SJW's." I do not, at all, subscribe to the notion that there is some actual "SJW" cabal or movement destroying All that is Good and True.™ There are strains of identity politics, including feminist ones, that are nuts and even dangerous to civil liberties. Like free speech.---Mona- (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
True enough, i just don't want to help "fill in" the SJW strawman or, as you said, validate the Gators' belief in a SJW cabal. A page of examples of left-wing authoritarianism would work though, that this could fall under, but a single tweet is not even deserving of a stub. Petey Plane (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Note that not even Balaam, who recreated it, actually thinks it's worth keeping - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This Balaam seems to refer to herself in the third person. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 22:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Frank Zappa | Result: Kept[edit]

Frank Zappa – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Most of the page reads like a Zappa fan came by and wrote about his favourite musician. Now, I love Zappa as much as the next music lover, but do we really need a page on him? His (brief) testimony for the PMRC can be put in that page, and other than that, there's not much left... He was critical of the religious right; well, he and millions of other people. Did he every do anything noteworthy about it to deserve a page here? Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You could say the same about the Beatles. CorruptUser (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
You should reconsider the article as it is now. FuzzyCatPotato of the NSFW Ear candles (talk/stalk) 04:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Most people didn't testify before Congress about it. ħuman 04:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Zappa was a civil libertarian of great intelligence, zeal and eloquence. Wish we'd had him longer.---Mona- (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

True, millions were against the Religious right, but could they sing against it like Zappa? Typhoon (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Current article is missional. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. It does not read like it was written by a fan of Mr. Zappa, it reads like it was written by an opponent of censorship. We do support opponents of censorship, I think. ħuman 04:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely keep. He was in my pantheon of gods; well, he would be if I had them. If it needs work, do the work.---Mona- (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Certainly missional.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
People being musicians doesn't make them non-missional per se. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep: missional. Does humor belong in RW? Bongolian (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Too biased to vote. If Zappa was alive, I, as a straight male, would be desperate to have his babies. CorruptUser (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Human's active did you ping him? There's a pile of music articles in funspace, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

7:1. Snowball? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 13:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sci.skeptic | Result: Fed to the Usenet monster[edit]

Sci.skeptic – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Orphan page of dead site with no archive.– 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 12:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
A skepticism-navelgazing stub. Exterminate with extreme prejudice!!1! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Quick glance at the google group that inherited the name shows a wasteland of spam and inane comment chains. Low signal/noise ratio, in usenet terms. Not a site RW needs to link. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Stubby article, but of historical importance - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

It still seems alive (I added a link to the archives)? Not sure if a separate page is warranted, but some mention somewhere might be good (not sure where though) Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@RationalWiki:Websites Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Not a website, but yeah, a brief mention there might be okay. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Or indeed seed that usenet article that 35 people think is a good idea (though none of them have started it) - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Up to 5 minutes ago I thought Usenet and newsgroups were two different things. >_< Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Merge to the now-extant Usenet article - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Eurovision Song Contest | Result: fun![edit]

Eurovision Song Contest – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

It's shit and wrong. Unless someone takes the time to rewrite this from scratch we should trash it ASAP. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
This article cites no sources and does not contribute to the mission of RationalWiki: to debunk crank ideas, refute pseudoscience, explore authoritarianism, etc. This article is useless and has no reason to exist. ^{— Unsigned, by: Pbfreespace3 / talk / contribs}
there is the crank idea that losing is a result of politics rather than shitness of song. But that's more sour grapes than anythingAMassiveGay (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
"Off mission" is an understatement. --JorisEnter (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
~~# 188.226.217.117 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)~~ Same person or someone else using the same proxy server. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Waaay off mission. Funspace entry permissable if somebody bothers to make it "funny and not just stupid". ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Why are we even discussing this? Stop getting so hung up on the process and following silly rules and learn what to do with garbage when you encounter it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
To those saying "delete" JUST GOOGLE "Conchita Wurst Russian reaction" 188.226.213.28 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Move to funspace. Bongolian (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Redspace would be even better - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
WTF? Delete. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Missionality not at all apparent - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't even merit an AfD. Product of a brand spankin' new BoN. Then another BoN right after the first deletion.---Mona- (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
are all Bons now suspect? regardless of the worthiness of a Eurovision, its a tad paranoidAMassiveGay (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
(ec)It's most likely the same person. 109.228.22.219 belongs to openproxy.co.uk. 51.254.35.235 belongs to ovh.com, which provides webhosting and is mostly likely also a proxy (its certainly not a residential internet connection), and all the IPs in the AfD and saloon have been from unblocksit.es. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Who cares? Checking up on users' IP location may be justified by major vandal attacks, but not for a silly article about Eurovision. Ŵêâŝêîôîď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
perhaps we should all use proxies in this era of surveillance. I fail to see how this could be construed as trolling, if that is the suggestionAMassiveGay (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Kill it with fire! Dunno about the rest of Europe but here in the UK it's regarded as probably below the Telly Tubbies as quality TV. Pippa (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm... not sure how its lack of popularity in one country is supposed to be at all relevant? >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:30, 13 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Not the popularity but the image it's got - it's quite popular but hardly worthy of note, so are 'Bake off' and 'Strictly' but not up to our standards. It's a load of crap of the first water with a relevance of zero for any of the RW mission goals. Might just creep in to Fun space but I'd say even that's doubtful. Pippa (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

KEEP. 188.226.213.28 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
You're the frickin person who created the article! Of course you would want it to be kept. You have not given any reason for your vote, whereas I and others have. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
not great reasons thoughAMassiveGay (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

One reason: Russian Homophobes hate ESC 188.226.213.28 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I gonna say keep, we haven't given the bon a chance to do anything with it or any one else to weigh in. I'm not a fan of Eurovision, but I am even less a fan of po faced snobbery it attracts. Probably fun space though, unless the bon surprises me. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
~~#Keep because of Russian who hate gay! 37.139.20.68 (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)~~ You can vote once only Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Allow opportunity for improvement before shooting this down. Certainly surprising to many, but there is some missional stuff to be said about this contest. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Which is a poor reason at keeping this turd. There is nothing of value in the current page. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, I think it's a great reason for keeping this turd for now. Give the horde of IPs a couple days to work on it. If it's still complete shit after that the vaporize button will still be there. The wiki isn't gonna go down the drain just because this page exists on it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:25, 13 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Yep, seems to be a right-wing bugaboo. The article is shit ATM, however. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Make into a fun page. CorruptUser (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. But make it fun. ħuman 02:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
So much, so very, very much, material for a fun page article.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

It's not obvious trolling. At least humor the BON. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
"not obvious trolling" -> Doubtful... Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Eurovision is clearly a tool of the Zionist patriarchy. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Very funny. What is Zionist? Eurovision Song Contest is important for nationalism and gays and transvetites and gay nationalism. And Russia hate Conchita Wurst. 37.139.20.68 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a tool of the Zionist revisionist geographers.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
i'd say delete unless it redresses the whitewashing of Dana international over that Johnny come lately conchita wurst. Beards are not a good look regardless of gender. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Goats have beards. BURN FOR YOUR HERESY. CorruptUser (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
this is why you are not allowed to play with matches and are only allowed plastic cutleryAMassiveGay (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I must admit that I find this contest, the awful songs and awful performances, and the annual hoopla it generates intriguingly incomprehensible. Maybe funspace is the place for this. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 21:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Fun page is fine by me.---Mona- (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Milo | Result: Reverted to DG's original purpose—redirect to some guy he's interested in and I've never heard of.[edit]

Milo – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

What a horrible idea. A bunch of links to some other website, and an opportunity to do the same for every other name in the book. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Collection of unmissonal links. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
If you misspelled "un-Masonal" then you'd be correct. If that's not the case, however... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:14, 11 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
--JorisEnter (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Utterly dumb, and I considered AfDing this myself. And what AH said.---Mona- (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete, as per above. Bongolian (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Still not sure what all the buzz is about. A fork page should be deleted because it has some extra info, WP links standing in for not-yet-extant RW articles and a bit of humour in it? People sure have some weird quality standards for fork pages then (or maybe how quality standards for fork pages are suddenly a thing the moment it becomes more than a bland page with 2-3 links is what's so weird). >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:18, 12 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Makes no sense to delete it for a simple redirect when the word "Milo" means more than just the guy who writes for Brietbart. Plus this wiki would be incomplete without a mention of the best beverage. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I think having fork pages listing among other things missional subjects that don't have articles yet (and optionally with informative WP links) isn't a bad idea. Though perhaps the {{wpl}} template should indicate more clearly that it's likely desirable for us to have our own article on the linked subject instead of us having to link to Wikipedia. As for oh-noes-people-will-make-fork-pages-for-all-names-now; this seems both a non-issue to me (assuming it were to come true to any extent at all) as well as a faulty argument based on an unlikely slippery slope. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:24, 11 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Literally none of the links are even missional. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Either you're pulling my leg or you've got an exceedingly narrow view of missionality... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:08, 11 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Not pulling your leg. Some of the politicians might be missional, but I don't see any missional content on wikipedia (at a glance). Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, some of those WP articles are rather on the small side. But looking at Đukanović's political career, there's bound to be something smelly hiding beneath that charismatic veneer: Et voilà! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

I created it as a redirect to the only Milo we have an article on for my convenience, Carpetsmoker deleted it because ... something. Redirect it back there, at least I'll find it useful - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

So long as we find a way to mention best beverage. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 19:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with a page titled "Milo" working as a page titled "Andy" or "Ed" would've back in the day. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

IMHO these sort of redirects are more in the way more than helpful; it shows up in the search results & auto-complete without any indication that it's a redirect Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a reason to change our search auto-complete to exclude redirects, not to delete any specific redirects. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:57, 12 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Yeah; that would indeed be the better solution; the best would probably be mentioning it's a redirect and to what. It's something I would investigate (and possible write a patch for) if RW received regular updates. As it stands, we have to deal with what we've got. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not presently misleading 'cos there's presently precisely one Milo article. If there's a second one we'll have something to disambiguate - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

But you don't know that it both refers to the same page until you click on it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Make the article entirely about the drink[edit]

The one true option. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Fun:Maratreanism | Result: Deleted[edit]

Fun:Maratreanism – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This joke isn't really funny any more (or even less than it ever was). This started in mainspace, survived previous deletion attempts and got shunted to shitespace. It should really be killed. David Gerard (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
What's the point when the prophet of the faith thinks it's delusional now? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
was fun at the time - now irrelevant. Ace ⁱ⁹ 17:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
speedy. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Pippa (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Not needed. Alec Sanderson (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Useful for providing context where Maratrea is brought up. Move to userspace maybe? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
It was created by Zach when he wasn't so well, and he'd be the only user it would be for - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, this is kind of a "right to be forgotten" thing. No need to keep it here. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, Maratreanism gets referenced on the wiki sometimes. It's sort of a bit of RW history. But I don't have particularly strong objections to deleting it (especially if Zack wants it gone). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Because bat. Bicycle^wheel 20:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

It's an obsolete joke on the Wiki. Move it to a userspace (perhaps somebody would be so kind as to keep an RWW-like copy, or else I suppose I could do the honors and store it) and leave it there to gather cobwebs. Old guard (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's the deal[edit]

Since this was going to be killed by a wide margin, but since keeping it in userspace isn't harmful in this case (it's not a libelous thing), I've gone ahead and placed the article on my bookshelf, so those of us who want to dust it off every now and again can, and the remainder of the Wiki can just forget it ever existed. Old guard (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the exact history, but to me it looks too much like "lets make fun of this crazy person!!" for me to be comfortable with... Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It was us poking fun at somebody who showed up and did something crazy. Crazy antics = laughter on RationalWiki. And as it is part of the history here and you can still find jokes about it, keeping it around to gather dust on a bookshelf seems like the best option, since those of us who remember that era do like to chuckle about it at times. Old guard (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Conservapedia:DeMyer's Laws | Result: Kept[edit]

Conservapedia:DeMyer's Laws – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The 2nd has mainstream notability; the remainder serve only to poke fun at User:Conservative. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
FCP, I'm surprised at you of all people throwing out a lack-of-notability claim as a reason for deletion ;) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Mostly I dislike the naming of an "enemy" of RW's and then making articles to attack him. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with poking fun at Conservative. He's an buffoon supreme. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Originally, likely...but the laws apply pretty well. They are used in other sites but this specific page is certainly #1 on Google. Are we going to delete all the "named" (people or site) laws like Haig's, Whale.to, Haggard's, Danth's, and Rove's? How about the ones just name after people like Cohen's, Cleek's, Godwin, Pommer's, Shaker's, Skarka's, and Skitt's? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Not that funny, but I see no reason to delete it either. Don't mind merging it in Conservapedia:Conservative either. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Pretty shameless attempt at burning RW's history by FCP. That newspapper clip is reason enough for me to keep it. Typhoon (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Seems funny enough to me that we could adapt this into some other article or whatnot. The newspaper cutout makes it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I would be fine with this. FuzzyCatPotato of the NSFW IPods (talk/stalk) 22:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Fun:Biblical longevity conspiracy theory | Result: Raptured[edit]

Fun:Biblical longevity conspiracy theory – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

I get the idea, but the writing is just... so bad. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Like most of "Fun"space it's not that funny. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Aromantic | Result: Redirect to Asexual#Aromantic[edit]

Aromantic – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The subtypes are just absurd nonces. Aromantic should be (possibly) be redirected to asexuality. Bongolian (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC) revisedBongolian (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

This content was lifted from Asexual and made a separate page. It was probably happier on the Asexual page (and it can probably be shortened a bit, too). Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge, and only terms with scientific sources should be kept: Aromantic, Demiromantic, and Grey-romantic [19]. All else is cullable. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
If we follow the precise model prescribed here by FCP, I move for a merger back into the main Asexual article. Though, again, without the fluff - and with better sources for what we keep. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge. Don't care what's done with the fluff. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge per FCP's idea. --JorisEnter (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
It's already done. FuzzyCatPotato of the Hairy Dominos (talk/stalk) 19:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I can't find any decent sources on the term "aromantic" itself, never mind all these sub-terms. If this is correct, then the conclusions I draw from that are not in favor of keeping the article as is nor for merging it back into the Asexuality article. Are the current contents of the Aromantic page basically just original research that never went viral? I'm honestly just wondering. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Just saw this[edit]

Aromanticism is not the same as asexuality, although it is often coupled with asexuality. They are two distinct things and does deserve its own article. But I suppose its far too late now. Maybe when more attention is given to aromanticism as a sub-orientation we can resplit the article. Asarelah (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Fecris | Result: Deleted[edit]

Fecris – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Currently copy-pasta Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Why do you say it's a copy/paste job? Only the lead seems to be taken from the official fecris description. I can't find where the rest is taken from. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I now see that *some* paragraphs are from wikipedia, while others are not... Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete: needs marinara sauce. Bongolian (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I fixed the copy/paste problem, but to be honest, I don't really see why we need a page on this. I think a mention in a "anti-cult" section in the Cults page, or a separate Anti-cult activism page, is more than enough. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The new stub version doesn't really serve a purpose other than saying that such a group exists. Unless anyone's keen to research & expand it, we might as well delete. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Topic seems obviously missional. Current version has been stubbed and any taint of Wikipedia copying has been purged. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Smerdis. Better to have the information than not. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Possibly on mission but takes its time getting to the point. If it's a copy-pasta, the source & copyright status should be established & it will probably need rewriting either way. Wėąṣėḷőįď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Probably on-mission but much of it is a lift from Wikipedia. Rewrite from the ground up. Bicycle^wheel 19:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Rabbit[edit]

Also, the name reminds me of Father Ted. Bicycle^wheel 19:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Ed Schultz | Result: Merged into Liberal talk radio[edit]

Ed Schultz – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

So how missional is this guy? I don't really see anything missional in the current page... Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete, but merge relevant content into Liberal talk radio. —Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Hardly anything to point out. Contractor (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Merge and redirect to Liberal talk radio if he's of relevance - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree with DG. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

The reason the article exists appears to be "He is the first liberal talk radio host to attain a national audience on a par with right-wing talkers like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage." You're in NL and I'm in the UK ... can an American weigh in on how relevant this guy is? - David Gerard (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Never heard of him. But I'd never heard of Alex Jones before, either. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

He was fun to watch on MSNBC while he was there. His evening time slot may have been filled by Al Sharpton, whom I avoid listening to. Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnell don't fulminate quite so much, but are still worth watching more often than not. Über-fulminator Keith Olbermann is, of course, now among the missing from that channel. Alec Sanderson (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Liberal talk radio has completely imploded here in North America. It became completely irrelevant several years ago except for disjointed pockets. I suppose there are still places where you can hear it on the radio, like the west coast, but it's gone here in the Washington DC metro area, except for our local Pacifica Radio outlet, which is more focused on local issues. There is no national liberal radio of any kind in the U.S. any more, when compared with the likes of Cumulus, Cheap Channel (now iHeartRadio), and Salem, which are apparently still making some money from a slowly aging old fart listenership that likes to hear right wing blather ad nauseum. It's not surprising that the noted personalities of liberal radio a few years ago, like Ed Schultz, have completely disappeared from the scene. —Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Ditto Cosmikdebris. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2016

December 2016[edit]

Politics and Science in the Bush Administration | Result: Deleted[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Lionel (radio personality) | Result: Deleted[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Van Badham | Result: delete[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Stanley Green | Result: Avenged[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Doug Stanhope | Result: Avenged[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Reductio ad Lincolnum | Result: assassinated[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Zionism | Result: Kept[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Biofeedback | Result: Redirected[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

November 2016[edit]

Glenn Greenwald | Result: Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Category:Bad sources | Result: Deleted[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

French politicians | Result: Deleted[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fun:Zionism | Result: Userspaced[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Deep web secrets | Result: Merge[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Race | Result: the combined vote here and the talkpage is 8-3 for deletion or merging of useful content; there is no useful content, so.[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Alan Dershowitz | Result: Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

October 2016[edit]

Solstice | Result: Turned into a redirect.[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]