RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2018

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

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

December 2018

The Golden One | Result: kept

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

Delete

1. Irrelevant YouTuber MtD^Bogan 08:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

   Delete unless someone can come up with a good argument to keep it. Bongolian (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

   Delete at least for now. Tyrone already has an article-in-construction about random Youtuber #whatever on his sandbox, so let him flesh it out some more before discussing about whether or not we allow it to be moved to main space. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 15:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

   I agree with Don Juan. Kill for now, but leave the door open for the draft. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 16:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. The Golden One is a crank and an authoritarian with 87 000 subscribers, possibly more in the future. He's exactly the kind of person Rational Wiki tries to expose. See this page for the purpose of Rational Wiki. Finally, this article is INCOMPLETE, which is different from being low-effort, you dumbass. I did add references before MtD reverted my edits. To see the updated version, click here. @LeftyGreenMario Tyrone8934 (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
2. The article is in a more serviceable state. Yes, it needs expansion and perhaps more direct quotes, but this seems enough, and the YouTuber passes the threshold of YouTubers we can cover, per Spud. Also per Spud, if you want to create an article, but it looks clearly unfinished, do so in your userpace, draft subpage. That way, it'll give you time to expand it without it being deleted for being inappropriate for mainspace. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
3. I retract my vote for deletion, as per LGM. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 19:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

   @Don Juan If you do, please cross out your vote for deletion. Nerd (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

   Don't think you really have to unless someone else has per you. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

4. Changing my vote. Keep, as per LeftyGreenMario. Bongolian (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Appears to have been improved enough to be spared, so I'll follow the mob on this one. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 21:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
6. 'tis fine, should be kept. — Dysk (contribs) 22:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Meets all the requirements in my mind. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. The article needs more sources, as well as fleshing out why people should care. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Yeah, I'd say give it a bit more time. Nerd (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
3. This should have been created in draft space instead of being plonked unfinished into main space. But The Golden One's YouTube videos tick all the right boxes for stuff we debunk. And he does indeed have 87,000 subscribers, so he meets our YouTube notability guidelines 87 times over. So I'm in the wait and see camp on this one. Spud (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Kim Jong-un.jpg | Result: Oh, sod it! We might as well sodding keep it

File:Kim Jong-un.jpg (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Commons has free images of Kim Jong Un available now, rendering this fair-use image unnecessary. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
2. The Portraits of Kim Jong-un category on Wikimedia Commons alone has 8 pictures in it. It's highly unlikely that all 8 of those pictures will be deleted. It's much more likely that more free to use pictures of him will be added. You might just as well argue that a locally uploaded picture of a glass of water should be kept because a similar image could be deleted from Commons. Spud (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, sod it! Since a deleted image is still stored on our servers, we might as well sodding keep it. You know, it isn't even used on the Kim Jong-un page, that uses an image from Wikimedia Commons instead. Oh, well. It doesn't make any sodding difference. Spud (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Wikimedia Commons has deleted pictures in the past (See Ayn Rand), and backups are always handy. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
2. What my dear Comrade said. Nerd (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Don't see a real reason to delete. Even if Wikimedia Commons keeps this image for eternity, no harm in having a copy here too. We don't even save space, as the image we delete is still stored in the servers. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Gyrocles | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Crappy article, about a crappy ad campaign, started by a crappy user for crappy reasons. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
2. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Candidate for speedy deletion. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
4. This isn't even worth discussing. The page is hopelessly off-topic and I'm deleting it now. Spud (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Joel Brind | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. Needs more content. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Needs more content? So write more content. Avida Dollars^{her again} 12:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

   It's not DiamondDisc1's obligation to expand an article he tagged for deletion. If an article conveys so little information that it might as well be a red link, then that's grounds for deletion. Having bland single-sentence articles does not make our wiki look good, and it's better to rework from scratch than have the article remain. Stubs are not inherently bad; it's when stubs are effortless, have no potential to be expanded (i.e. no resources), and do not inform. Having a stub article be composed of a few paragraphs, but well sourced statements is acceptable. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

   His complaint was that it was too short, and therefore, needs to be lengthened, and therefore, ought to be kept. So why does he want it deleted? Avida Dollars^{her again} 14:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

2. I'm with @Avida Dollars. If it's a stub that needs expansion, then expand it! If we were to just delete every little stub because they're stubs, then we may as well delete every last article in the "stubs" category. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 21:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
3. I'm not sure what this person's role is on abortion and breast cancer pseudoscience, but this person's publication has elicited a response by Journal of the National Cancer Institute, so it seems significant enough for that organization to publish it. I'm not sure how editorials work for that journal, if it reflects the journal's views, however. Nevertheless, this person did receive mainstream press attention, which should be worthy enough. This article, the bulk being about anti-abortion pseudoscience, is categorized strangely, as I feel it's more fit to use {{abortion}} rather than creationism. But in the end, there is no article on that sort of pseudoscience, so I was going to support merge/redirect, but that's if the article exists, and I'm not talking about Evidence linking abortion to breast cancer. Surprisingly, no article exists, and we don't even have much of a discussion of abortion/breast cancer pseudoscience in the parent abortion article! --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
4. There's definitely a lot of meat left on the bone here. Deleting this one is the wrong call. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. How can we expand this article, assuming that's possible? How significant is this person? We should not waste time with nobodies. Just because someone wrote something does not mean they deserve attention. Nerd (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

   Can anyone explore a little beyond our subsection of "Lecturing"? If the guy has been invited to write stuff for mainstream newspapers and appear on some TV, surely we can get a bit more information on him? The citation provided, unfortunately, is a broken link. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Lauren Chen | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and state there's basically nothing here to critique. So she's mildly conservative and has an Internet presence? That's hardly justification for an article. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

   Is someone who associates with Richard Spencer really "mildly conservative"? If she was properly challenging him then maybe, but otherwise she'd seem to be pretty seriously conservative. It needs more info on her beliefs. --Annanoon (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

2. I agree with the above. Seems like she's just one of the dime-a-dozen YouTube conservatives with a mild but hardly influential following. Fuzikami (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

   @Fuzikami Despite her growing influence on Twitter and YouTube, inviting alt-righters to her channel, and being a CRTV host? TheEOE (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

3. She's a very moderate conservative and clearly NOT far-right! Therefore, the point of this article doesn't stand. Therefore, it should be removed.TaraElla (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

   @TaraElla

   1. You just want to delete the article because it got her wrong about her being far-right and not at least fix it or make some kind of contribution to add on to it?

   2. The article never claimed that she was far right, but "promotes far right talking points". Someone can mistake that based on her apologetics and sympathy for some of the alt-right and alt-lite. TheEOE (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

4. What @141.134.75.236 said. Nerd (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Aside from being one of Canada's worst exports, she's a far-right activist smuggling white nationalist talking points into the mainstream. She uses statistical manipulation and distortion of facts in order to push a hard-right ideological agenda. Remember her whole thing about "black on black crime"? Keep the post up. The more exposure, the better. (Her boss is Gavin McInnes, for god's sake!) ^{— Unsigned, by: Hrotsvitha / talk / contribs}
2. I wouldn't call her far-right (moreso just conservative) but her following is fairly large - over 300 000 subscribers, which is in the same ballpark as many other Internet personalities we have articles for. She is also connected to many prominent alt-right or alt-lite figures (Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Lauren Southern). The article does need to be expanded to explain in detail what is irrational about her beliefs, but it's worth having. 24.235.177.51 (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
3. What @24.235.177.51 said. Also, if we're going to delete Lauren Chen, then might as well delete Hunter Avallone, like I requested before. TheEOE (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Keep. Still missional. Fuck notability.--Don Juan (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Currently unlisted crazy: global warming denialist, though, like all flavors of denialists, hates being called a denialist, and constantly laments that her particular unsubstantiated "middle ground" is also called denialism, where she says "oh 2 degrees between paris accords targets for 2100 and status quo is 'imperceptible'". She even plays a poisoning the well game in the main article she posits that shit position "Oh I'll be called denialist for this", like it's not arbitrarily rejecting fuck-tons of evidence and research that's well publicized. No one with tens of thousands of followers pitching that flavor of pseudoscience should be skipped. She also definetly pitches the "black people are just inferior and oppression doesn't exist" thing pretty hard. Which is hardcore race psuedoscience, but bundled in an "anti-sjw" flavored shell where she's objecting to invented strawmen, instead of presenting the (disgustingly racist) positive case that underlies that bullshit. This is not an article that should be deleted. This is an article that should be expanded. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
6. We don't let global warmig deniers off easily. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
7. She passes herself as a common-sense libertarian, although there are some very unliberal streaks about her. To discredit feminism & racial justice she advances the usual anti-PC tropes & "boohoo, you're not oppressed"-talking-points. And since she doesn't come off as too strident & hateful, a non-informed or neutral observer might fall for her faux-common-sense-advocacy. Debunk her (& Dave Rubin's) fake centrism all the way, I say. EauDeCologne (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

SJWiki | Result: More votes for delete than keep after a month. It's gone and nobody will miss it.

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

Delete

1. This article was deleted in 2015 and recently restored by @BadPiggies 9. The original reason for deletion was: Off-mission: Minor wikis with n o edits are not article content, regardless of whether the topic is mission. CowHouse (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
2. It's a very small stub that conveys barely any useful information. I'd go for expand, given if the wiki is notable to begin with, but either way, it cannot remain in its current state, and it should at the very least go to draft space. As for the merge option to a list, I believe that's another issue for another day, but we went through a Youtube purge and it might be worth looking into what websites to keep or to discard using similar criteria. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
3. Why are we covering a stillborn wiki? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
4. Doesn't seem missional at all. ^{— Unsigned, by: Ibrahim_Moizoos / talk / contribs} 14:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
5. Just visited. Nothing of note here. Nerd (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. We have tried to add lots of content to this article, and there seems to be quite a bit of information here. It is also quite relevant because SJWiki was (probably) created in response to us, as you will see in the article. Also, it is definitely missional, and should definitely be covered here on RW because it is a huge embarrassment to feminism, social justice, and the progressive left. It now has even more content than it did before, and I still see some more potential for this article on SJWiki. B'P"9 04:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
2. It's missional. RW has never been about notability and it's annoying that wannabe Wikipedians are trying to make it that way. Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 17:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
3. As above. -Lankaster (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Add it to the list of wikis we already have. Contrary to what the above rationale for deleting the article was, SJWiki is missional because it deals heavily with social justice issues, just as RW does as well, although we don't focus exclusively on social justice, it's just one of many subjects that fall under the purview of our mission.--Palaeonictis (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

   But there is a point to this. Remember the Youtube purge? Shouldn't we also try to filter what we cover and what we don't cover on the same ideas that something should be notable enough? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

   Then why should we have spaces on the wiki dedicated to such "noteworthy" wikis such as Liberapedia? Should we do a wiki purge as well? I believe that there should be a limitation to these purges, and one must find a balance between missionality and notability.--Palaeonictis (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

2. Above reason.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 14:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
3. I agree. We should just merge it with our already-existing article on wikis- just like Liberapedia, Uncyclopedia, and the others. Also, it is missional, since it focuses exclusively on social justice (like us), albeit to a far more extreme level. Also, its articles seem to go on and on about how evil all priveleged people are, to the point that it's almost like the far-left equivalent of CP. It's funny. B'P"9 18:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

   Do you mean "extensively"? We don't focus exclusively on social justice. CowHouse (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

   I never said we did. B'P"9 04:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

   Quote: "Also, it is missional, since it focuses exclusively on social justice (like us)". CowHouse (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

   Nah, CowHouse, don't be pedantic. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

4. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
5. A section on the wiki page is all that this needs. Spud (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Goat

• FWIW, it was inspired by one of the RW Facebook groups, so it's vaguely descended from RW. List in the wikis article? Maybe - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• It seems pretty dead, not that that stops us from documenting citizendidumb. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• A whole lot of meh is all I have to say about this. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Alt-righters | Result: Merged into Category:Alt-right

Category:Alt-righters (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. I don't think it's particularly useful to have a separate category for alt-right personalities, considering most of our alt-right articles are about the personalities. Just put them in Category:Alt-right. (Btw, a lot already are and having both categories at the bottom just looks silly.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
2. It's an unnecessary subcategory. CowHouse (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
3. Agreed. Spud (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
4. Yeah, it seems pretty redundant. Binarystep (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
5. Do away with redundant categories. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
6. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
7. Nerd (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. There are 54 articles in this category. The parent category has 63 articles about alt-right slogans, websites, mkovements and organisations. Even considering a small number of those are one-person bands, there are still enough to be worth keeping the two separate. 88.105.157.122 (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)

   So, why not merge the subcategories? Are you sure those don't overlap already with Category:Alt-right? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

   Why not give a reasion beyond "why not?" Maybe it's better to keep individual people distinct from groups, slogans and concepts. 92.20.166.165 (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)

   My question, since it wasn't clear, was a semi-rhetorical one. How the categories are organized is all over the place. We don't have Category:Sexists Or Category:Ableists (but we have Category:Sexism and Category:Ableism), but we do have both on Category:Racists/Category:Racism and Category:Anti-Semites/Category:Anti-Semitism and Category:Homophobes/Category:Homophobia. We have individuals/organizations categorized in Homophobia and Racism also despite the categorizes for individuals/organizations existing. My point is we really need to clean up categories and apply some consistency here. While we do have split categories for individuals and the concepts, the overlapping thing is a problem, and this isn't helping, so I think we should discuss that first before we have a category that does little to distinguish between individuals/organizations and concepts. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

2. I agree with the BoN above, the "Alt-righters" sub-cat serves its purpose. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 11:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

   the BON? Blimey, log out round here and suddenly you're chopped liver. 88.105.157.122 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

   Given that I have no idea who you are outside a Bunch of Numbers (BoN), what else should I refer to you as? Sam? Bob? Dave? Sally? Alice? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

   I had hoped that putting my name in brackets at the end might be some sort of clue... 88.105.157.122 (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC) (Sam, Bob, Dave, Sally, Alice Sophie)

   Ah, my apologies. Given that your original post lacks your usual signature I was unaware that it was you. EDIT: I apparently need more caffeine, since the signature is indeed there.☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

   And maybe I need to come up with yet another Marcel Duchamp-based username as my latest LANCB has gone the way of all the others :( 88.105.157.122 (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)

3. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
4. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Since this topic doesn't seem to be reaching consensus, I propose that Alt-Righters be merged into Alt-right. Alt-right has 126 articles in it, of which about 51 are people. It looks like it would be easier to avoid confusion by merging the two categories together. LeftyGreenMario's analysis is spot on; we should also take a look at categories like this throughout the wiki and try and make them more consistent. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

   Just noting that this doesn't seem meaningfully different from what is proposed under "Delete". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

   Good point. Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

2. Above reason.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 00:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
3. Absolutely. And again I think the problem (in most of the cases where something like this happens on the wiki) is templates that come with categories attached to them. Spud (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
4. We should just make this category a redirect to the "Alt-right" category- just like how the "Atheists" category redirects to the "Atheism" category. _{How's my editing}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Goat

I have on specific concern: doesn't the wording we've chosen sound dumb? "righters" that sounds like a 1980s british neologism. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 01:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

There was "rightist" but it was co-opted by leftists to describe centrists. Avida Dollars^{her again} 14:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez | Result: Expelled from the cabal (there isn't one)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. A pitifully tiny stub that doesn't further RationalWiki's mission. So she's a Democratic Socialist that surprised the establishment with an impressive primary victory. So what? She's done nothing to warrant an article of her own, and a mention in the Democratic Socialists of America article should suffice. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Tiny puff piece that does nothing beyond state obvious/unimportant information and give one-liner rebuttals to some accusations that no one gives a shit about. We're RationalWiki, not Diet Wikipedia. I thought the article might get better in the future, but it clearly hasn't. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC) [UPDATE: Well, she's won and it looks like there's been a single-sentence update that makes the article even more of a puff piece. (Pretty much what I said would happen). Can we finish this now? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)]
3. I think the plague of articles on minor congressmen that has never been updated since they were first written is kind of a problem, and adding to it is not the solution. I mean, this article is a few months old and says almost nothing about what she actually believes. Delete, or redirect to draftspace when someone wants to actually expand this article. Edit: Conditional vote for delete, so long as vote lasts until Nov. 9, 2018. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
4. She may have won, but I don't think we should have an article on her yet.-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
5. Off-mission. I fail to see what this has anything to do with the topics this wiki focuses on. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{My experiments} 21:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
6. Seems to be just a low-content puff-piece on the kind of person we like. Similar articles have bitten the dust in the past (eg Woody Guthrie and Blaise Pascal). Avida Dollars^{her again} 09:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keepicare-for-All! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Goat

• I mean, it'd help the case for deletion if she lost the upcoming election. Couldn't you have put this off for like... a week? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Let's wait till after the midterm elections. If she wins and becomes better known, this page will almost certainly be expanded; there are a lot of editors here who are interested in politics. If she loses and fades away, her page can then be deleted. Nerd (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• AFD votes usually sit for a while, so I'm sure we'll be able to see the midterm results. Even if she wins though, I doubt this article will see much improvement beyond a one or two sentence update. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  According to most polls, she's a lock to win. Fivethirtyeight says there's a >99% chance she will take the seat. I considered this before creating the AfD. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  Like I said above, her victory will likely do nothing to improve the article. If this AFD fails, I'll wait until the end of the year before trying again and gloating about how right I was. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  My general feeling is that if a self-declared socialist, like member of a socialist party socialist, not a Bernie "if [having certain policies] makes me socialist then I guess I am" socialist, makes it into national office, the inane(and missional) backlash will be measurable pretty quickly. That's extrapolating, but would you bet against it? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  I'm betting on her being another Obama. But hey, you never know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  Obama was a magnet for conspiracy theories though. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 05:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  Only because he was president. Who makes conspiracy theories about representatives? Avida Dollars^{her again} 13:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  (DuckDuckGo because google has different results for each person)infowars, brietbart, natural news, godlike productions, or any number of other cranks? The conspiracies and bullshit are already neckdeep, and we just deleted this article because we're dumb. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ikanreed totally vindicated

Literally non-stop deluge of extremely gross shit piles up every day. The huge sloth of articles about her "jewish hertiage" using a very very fucking nutso graphical choice, missional as fuck conspiracy thoeries about her popping up. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Webshites | Result: Keep (but needs pruning and cleanup)

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

Delete

1. A giant link farm of uncurated websites does not further RationalWiki's mission.

   RationalWiki shouldn't host pages that have dozens and dozens of unexplained links to obscure YouTube sites.

   If BONs and random RationalWikians want to add a link, they should be encouraged to use the to do list so they can tell us why a site deserves consideration and why they consider it missional.

   The pages could be cleaned up. First, remove all uncurated links with no description. Next, remove all links to sites with minimal or unhelpful descriptions. What's left is a page that has a list of websites that we have an article on, or websites we should consider for making an article on. Remove the latter and put them in the to do list.

   Now all that's left is a portal for articles on the wiki grouped by major category, which duplicates portals we already have. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

2. What C said. Nerd (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Don't need a RW's Index Librorum Prohibitorum -Lankaster (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep but prune. An index of shitty sources is a good thing, especially if we don't have articles on them, but there must be some level of quality control. Obscure cranks are generally obscure for a reason. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Per. It's counterproductive to delete a page filled with tons of sites that fit our missionality, and it can potentially be starting points for people who just feel like debunking. Some of these can grow popular in the future. Some of these serve to poison the reputation of good sites (such as Popular Technology or Left Exposed). I do believe there should be some curation of what sites go here. Wix sites, unless they get really, really popular for some reason, generally don't go here. Wikias probably shouldn't go here. Some sites do deserve less than an article but still a mention, and that's what this list should serve, and I don't see any harm for it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Per, on condition that we prune the list immediately after. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

   Yes. As with the Youtuber purge, how do we proceed to purge the links? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

   @LeftyGreenMario We can start with the YouTube links. We can apply the same criteria to them that we used during the YouTube purge. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Keep, could be a good resource. But jeez, clean-up needed. Badly. Looking through the Sexuality one... It needs work... Dendlai (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

   @Dendlai Homophobe #568... TERF #937... Yawn... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

5. It's already been said. Keep but heavily prune. Any YouTube nobodies with fewer than a thousand subscribers should, of course, be the first to go. Spud (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
6. As above. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
7. These kind of pages just need a gardener to keep on top of the weeds. Avida Dollars^{her again} 13:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
8. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
9. I think that we should keep this page, but just drastically improve it. Remove pointless YT video links and links to insignificant webshites, and replace them with better webshites. _{How's my editing}CircularRasoning^{Prototype lab} 21:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Hypocrisy | Result: Punched to a fence using boxing gloves from its own hat.

Category:Hypocrisy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This category has no real utility. We deleted Category:Bullshit (see AfD), Category:Insufferable assholes (see AfD) and Category:Batshit crazy (see AfD). This category has similar problems to the aforementioned categories, being a vaguely defined end-of-the-page jab applied to anyone or anything who holds inconsistent views or performs actions inconsistent to said views. There are better categories that exist that serve liars (Category:Shysters, Category:Chickenhawks, Category:Conservative deceit, and Category:Enablers), and more specific cases of hypocrisy can be dealt with the body article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Yup. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Overly broad category that doesn't serve a useful purpose. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Hypocrisy can be applied to just about anyone with a pulse. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
5. 

RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

1. Destitute of any species of merit. Nerd (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Fun:Conservapedia How To Guide | Result: Stomped

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

Delete

1. I deleted the page Fun:Conservapedia How To Guide because significant portions of it were copied from Liberapedia's article on Conservapedia. The creator of the article then restored it, unchanged, and added this disclaimer:
   Inspired by the Conservapedia article on Liberapedia. (Edit summary: Gave credit to LP so that this is never deleted for plagiarism again) CowHouse (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
2. The plagiarism from Liberaapedia is reason enough to delete it. Also, we really don't need any more articles about Conservapedia. We've had two mass culls of articles about Conservapedia and we've slapped templates on the ones we've kept saying that cP isn;t really what we;re about anymore and readers can find more interesting stuff here. We are now firmly in post-Conservapedia times here. Spud (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
3. Plagiarism is lazy and stupid. In addition, who or what is a "Conservapedia"? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
4. No. Spud sums up pretty well, but I also need to bring up the creator's very bad conduct when dealing with other users. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
5. Plagiarism. Kill it. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. That's just plain ridiculous! We could just change the instructions within the article to make them less Liberapedia-like! Why is that your solution to every problem on this wiki is to revert, revert, revert. Remove, remove, remove. Delete, delete, delete.? Oh, and before you start demanding specific examples (yes, I'm on to you now), I've already got quite a few:

• SJWiki.

• Freedom From Atheism Foundation.

• This article that you marked for deletion because of something that we can easily fix in a less drastic way.

It is for these reasons that I have come to be increasingly suspicious of you. Now you're going too far.

B'P"9 05:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Mark Foley | Result: Merged into Haggard's Law

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

Delete

1. Not exactly necessary and stub. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Seems like a short note as an example of Haggard's Law. Maybe merge to that one instead. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
2. Merge with Haggard's Law. Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
3. Yep, this would make an excellent addition to the Haggard's Law article. -BP9 23:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
4. Merge with Haggard's Law, but keep the photo and caption. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
5. Sounds good. I also agree with GC that we should keep the photo. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
6. As above. Nerd (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Hubble's law | Result: Redirected to Big_Bang#Pillar_1:_The_Universe_is_expanding

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

Delete

1. Stub with questionable missionality; what is there to debunk? —Kazitor 06:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

   Three lines? Pathetic! Spud (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

2. Not sure what the point of this is, beyond mistaking RW for a science encyclopedia. Is it even worth a redirect? 79.68.238.208 (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)
3. Worthless, not even worth a redirect. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Oh come on. It's a relevant nib of scientific theory for debunking creationism. We're gonna link it, and redirecting to big bang doesn't actually answer anything. Have a see also wikipedia, but mention that it debunks creationists. This ain't hard. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   After existing for almost a decade it's been linked in two or three articles (plus some random links from the science template). Something tells me the wiki can do without this little tidbit. Unless someone wants to expand this into something worthwhile... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   That's literally 2-3 places on the wiki someone might be reading and go "what's that?" Stubs aren't illegal. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   And for those (literally) 2-3 places a note or Wikipedia-link can readily answer that question, instead of coaxing people to click a link to this almost-completely-phantom-limb of a page. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   I have to agree with Bon. While stubs aren't illegal or inherently bad, it's best we minimize them when we get the opportunity. The bigger problem is that the article is only tangentially missional, which hardly justifies its existence, and you can make the argument on the hypothetical reader for practically any article like this one. This is why we have Wikipedia links. Besides, the other option, redirecting this page to possibly an anchor to a subsection somewhere, isn't bad either and also accomplishes that goal of guiding readers to more information. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   I guess I see your point. It's just when I'm holding hedge clippers I don't go "that perfectly healthy, not-out-place leaf back there is tiny and hasn't grown for 10 years, time to cut it off". Is that a contrived metaphor? Dunno. Am I babbling, definitely. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   I wouldn't cut off the tiny leaf either, but then tiny leaves are pretty (and alive!), while a white screen with a huge template and a tiny inkling of text is not, in my opinion. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   Well, just think of it like this, it's a tiny leaf that's languishing, and we're snipping it off and attaching it to a healthier plant. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Could reasonably be redirected to Big Bang, which mentions the law and has more context. Not much point in keeping. --Annanoon (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
2. I second this motion. Nerd (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
3. A redirect seems in order. Count Bezukhov (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Yes, redirect. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
5. Merge and redirect. Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
6. Can somebody who understands this science stuff just go ahead and merge it already? Spud (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure any of it merits merging, it just needs a redirect. --Annanoon (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Spud Done! Nerd (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

KassieDill | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. This person is not significant enough to have an article. She has only 1 thousand YouTube subscribers and 181 Twitter followers. CowHouse (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Just one of many very traditional Christians. Nothing special. Spud (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
3. kill. — Dysk (contribs) 13:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
4. She has moved her blog to The Steele Chronicles "For those who believe the pen is mightier than the sword." She appears to be an obscure run-of-the-mill right-winger, though to her credit she has posted an anti-Trump, anti-Alex Jones screed. Obscure is the keyword here, in other words, who cares? There's no need to profile her here. Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Goat

On the one hand this channels bullshit is pretty common, on the other hand the article states that the YouTuber was a member of the Alliance of Christ a then noteworthy YouTube group. Maybe kill this article but keep the group? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 11:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm in favour of deleting the Alliance of Christ article as well. I wouldn't call them noteworthy since they also have only 1 thousand subscribers and almost all of their videos have less than 5 thousand views. The creator and primary editor of both pages is the same user. CowHouse (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

EazyOnMe | Result: Deleted. And our approach to YouTubers will never be the same again.

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

Delete

1. Trying to establish a precedent about whether youtube celebrities who are tangentially missional should have pages. My own feeling is that one of three conditions need to apply: they're modestly popular and peddle woo/other bullshit, they're modestly popular and are a self-identified skeptic/debunker, or they're really fucking popular and touch on missional things from time to time. This seems to be a case of modestly popular and touching on relevant things. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   We really need a guideline establishing how much subscribers/average views these Youtubers need (or how much money they make through donations) before we make articles on them. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   Remind me again, where do we have policy discussions proper? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   I was just thinking pretty much the same thing. The constant stream of articles about YouTubers is getting to be a problem. And that problem needs to be nipped in the bud now. When supporting the motion to delete articles, I used to keep saying, "A nobody with a blog is still a nobody." Well, the modern equivalent of that is, "A nobody with a YouTube channel is still a nobody." I think we really need to have a discussion about this in the Saloon Bar and to thrash out some strong guidelines, if not actual rules. I look forward to the day when I can just go ahead and delete an article about a YouTuber who only has 50 subscribers or about one who just hates everything equally without any discussion at all. Spud (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

2. An article about a relatively average YouTuber with little to nothing of note. Kill it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Doesn't strike me as being interesting enough for an article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Per Ikanreed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
5. As I said above, having a YouTube channel now is the modern equivalent of what having a blog used to be. And we don't need an article about every nobody that's got one. Spud (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
6. No indication as to why the person is significant. Count Bezukhov (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
7. "they're really fucking popular and touch on missional things from time to time" - sorry but that's not good enough for me. In the past we've deleted articles on authors and TV shows (and even an entire TV channel) because they only "touched on missional things." Everybody, in the end, touches on missional things. I think we need more to justify an article. 92.5.137.91 (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)

Goat

I'm seeing a lot of documenting of this guy's views, but not much debunking of those views. This is particularly disheartening given that several of these views, such as his views on white privilege, are demonstrably fallacious. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Fossil record indicates this page is mostly by one user who is a fan, which is a risk of having pages off(ish)-mission with low(ish) notability. I've never heard of this person before this, but they're sorta kinda maybe semi-recognizable as youtube fame goes, according to stats posted on the talk page. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Two choices then, someone adds some some debunking or kills off the article. Either way this fandumb version must die, for the good of all. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If it was just that, I'd change it myself and not do an AFD. But if we did debunk, are they worth keeping? That's still an open question per them being a minor, not really all-that bullshit focused either on the pro or anti side, and not that famous. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Mysticalforest | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. This channel has only 539 subscribers and most of the channel's videos have been deleted. All current videos have less than 1000 views. This article is also mostly unsourced. CowHouse (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
2. On the one hand, slightly above average bullshit. On the other hand, the bullshit isn't that far above average, the channel is more or less defunct, and the article has poor sourcing. Send it to the firing squad Comrades!!! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
3. Subject is not significant enough for an article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
4. Just another micro-youtuber. 92.9.28.115 (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC) (sophie)

Muslamic ray guns | Result: Merge

Muslamic ray guns (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Non-notable old meme, was somewhat funny in 2011 but don't see the point in keeping it. Count Bezukhov (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. We don't do notability at RW, we do missionality. Also, I still see this being used from time to time. 85.210.49.154 (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)
2. Per Sophie. Snarky mocking of right-wing groups is super on-mission and we don't delete other articles (e.g. Andy) just because they're old. Ⲥⲡⲣⲓⲅⲅⲓⲛⲁ (ⲧⲁⲗⲕ) (ⲕⲟⲛⲧⲣⲓⲃⲩⲧⲓⲟⲛⲥ) @ 19:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Not really worth its own article in my opinion. Thusly my vote is to merge it with the EDL article. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
2. Yes, merge with EDL. After all, just like @GrammarCommie, I don't think this is really worth IT IS own article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

   Some common misspellings are pretty dumb, but "it's" works fine as a possessive formed the way almost every possessive in the English language is formed. And "it's" can already mean "it is" and "it has", so it's not like a little ambiguity is really a big deal in practice. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

   So I suppose you would write "your's", "hi's", "her's", "our's" and "their's"? I certainly hope not. —Kazitor 01:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

3. Yeah. I think people are more likely to read about this forgotten meme if it's a section on the English Defence League page rather than if it's a stand alone article. Spud (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
4. It grinds a silly joke into the ground, but it is mildly amusing and missional. It's just that it seems disproportionately detailed with all the quotes, and doesn't actually do a very good job of explaining itself. Merge and maybe edit a bit. (A relevant image macro would be worth a thousand words.) I might support keeping if the article was funnier and had some actual pictures of Muslims with sci-fi weaponry. --Gospatric (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
5. What Gospatric said. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hunter Avallone | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. Lacks a lot of information. The most constructive part I see in the article is his views on LGBT people. Despite that, it barley mentions anything else about him afterwards. Either this needs to be rewritten or trashed and started from scratch. TheEOE (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. I'm leaning more on keep and just expand. His views on transgenders are described as what he's famous for so I do guess that's why the section on LGBT is so comprehensive. Everything else does seem like a side dish, but I don't have much of a problem with that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Taking a quick look at the fossil record, it seems this page pisses some people off. I think it's worth keeping just on that basis. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

   Don't you love when disputers just whitewash the article and back up their claims with bare assertions like "it's teh factz" and "i'm correcting misinfo-mation". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

   @LeftyGreenMario That's because they subscribe to "alternative facts". ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

3. He has only half a million subscribers. Not sure if he is that influential. But since he publishes videos frequently, I suppose someone sufficiently interested to keep updating the article. Nerd (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Atheism-is-Unstoppable | Result: Deleted

Atheism-is-Unstoppable (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This article is clearly outdated and doesn't reflect Devon's recent turn into full race realism and white nationalist apologism. Perhaps it could work if heavily rewritten, but for now it acts as way to legitimise a radical racist by merely portraying him as a bit problematic, and I suggest it be deleted so people unfamiliar with Devon's channel aren't fooled into following his content based on this. Orlando2996 (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
2. This person warrants no more than a paragraph or two in our Webshites log. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
3. This YouTube account has been terminated. Nerd (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
4. As I've noted in several other nuke cases, I generally think we have waaayyy too low a bar for including nobodies with YT channels/blogs. Unless they have an actual impact (e.g. Mencius Moldbug in shaping neoreactionary ideas) or a high profile (e.g. loads of views/subscribers - which typically will put them in the impact category as well), I really don't think we should generally be creating articles on individual YouTubers or bloggers. If their ideas are relevant to RW, they can be used as examples to illustrate articles about relevant topics (note that we don't have a separate article on Moldbug, but that he is covered in the article on the neoreactionary movement. This, I think, is generally the way forward). ScepticWombat (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Goat

• Ideally, this article can use a rewrite, but I also agree that we shouldn't be trying to promote the views of someone turned "race-realist" and white nationalism. That being said, the first paragraph does already portray him as not exactly the most pleasant petunia in the garden. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• I agree. This page does need a rewrite. However, I don't see how we where we were trying to promote his views. Also, he was in the "Batshit crazy" and "Insufferable assholes" categories. TheEOE (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Anti-revisionism | Result: Kept

Anti-revisionism (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Ill-referenced personal essay, has never been a good article. Missionality questionable, and at present no article would be an improvement. Talk page discussion not helpful. Should be moved to essay space, redirected somewhere useful or removed. David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. There's no remote reason for removing it apart from "I don't want to edit it" which is silly. The page legit just needs better formatting and extra detail, deleting it isn't productive. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

   So add the frickin detail. Or move it to Draft: space until it's actually an article - David Gerard (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

   I would if I had the time for it in between my Masters, which I currently don't. How about you actually pull your weight for once and do it yourself? The article is fine apart from the so called "essay" you complained about, yet when asked to deal with your perceived problem, you pull a fit. How about you work on it, and stop bothering me with your whining. It's sad at this point. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

   You don't have time to make it not shit, but you think shouting abuse until others do your work for you will get it done? To draft: I would say - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

   "So do X for pointing that out" is not a reasonable (or a polite) response to someone who thinks the article is fine and can just use a few details that overall shouldn't impact the article. I don't see the point in moving it to draft space just for the sake of adding detail when just working on the page suffices. This also applies to both of you, especially Captain Communist; you shouldn't respond with "Why don't you do it too" either, just leave it at "I don't have time for it" and perhaps with my advice above about article critique, without making another rude quip that would serve to escalate the conflict. I also noticed your similar rude response earlier to the initial criticism of the page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

   It may be rude, but it's a painful fact, which is why I tend to stay away from you lot due to the overall attitude I get off people here. I gave a polite and nice response to David's original complaint, I get cheekiness back. That's disrespect. I'm usually the only person fixing most of these articles, no one else choses to help or assist in any meaningful way, apart from myself. The article's contents are fine and explain the concept at a base level. David thinks otherwise. I'm not fixing his problems. That's the end of the matter. I'm not bothering with these silly semantics, and there is no "conflict" so please stop with the dramatization. I'm off to be actually productive elsewhere. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

   I believe your attitude is the problem, not everyone else. Nor is it "painful fact". Criticism sucks, yes, everyone will get defensive from some, but you haven't addressed any criticism here which is why David Gerard got impatient with you. Even asking for a elaboration would've been the appropriate response, not sarcastic whining and generalizing wiki attitude, even if David Gerard did act a little cheeky. As for "dramatization", I wouldn't feel the need to step in the moment either of you didn't exchange semi-aggressive retorts. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

2. I didn't know what anti-revisionism meant. I read the page. Now I know what anti-revisionism means. What's the problem? Spud (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Decent stub. Perfectly missionable. Let's all settle down. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Entirely missional as an exploration of dogmatic authoritarianism. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
5. I see little reason to delete this page. Sources and expansion are needed but this can be easily be worked on. This is why the improvement tags exist, after all. Moving this to draft is needless; the article is not THAT bad that its continued existence is bad image for the wiki. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
6. No satisfactory justification to delete this page. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
7. While this page needs a lot of work in its current state, I do not see this as a reason to delete it. Nerd (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Nightmare Fuel | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. This channel has barely 10,000 subscribers, so I don't find it significant enough to warrant an article. The creator of the channel has also become an apologist for the alt-right so perhaps it's best this page doesn't exist to normalise him DiabolikDownUnder (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
2. This article is bare bones and even its own structure reminds me of a skeleton. The article is filled with a bunch of bland general statements about his views, so it's not that informative or interesting. I don't think RationalWiki will miss this one. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Not good enough to keep, not important enough to improve. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
4. See Talk:Nightmare_Fuel#Notability for my reasoning. CowHouse (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
5. He didn't like the content on the page so he accused RationalWiki of being a "SJW site" (used in the pejorative sense) and then goes on to agree with and defend his uncomfortable views that are listed on the site. Ef him. listed.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DHy3FnyJkE&t=239s ^{— Unsigned, by: Lymetime / talk / contribs}
6. Not only should we not give alt-right nobodies a free ad, but maybe we shouldn't make a big deal of nobodies of any kind, even in mockery. Too easy to become KiwiFarms that way. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Olympia Snowe | Result: Goat

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

Delete

1. Questionable missionality and unlikely to be updated. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
2. I mean, I'd heard of her in exactly this context as described here. But... not sure there's a mission component in pointing out lame-ass centrists who are lame and asses. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

   Sounds like someone I might have voted for, but she's not interesting enough to have her own article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC) (See below).

3. -(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Why did this even get added in the first place? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

   She was cited in the media a possible crosser on some super public party-line votes, but then didn't. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

   That's a pretty crappy reason. Delete. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

5. No point.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 00:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. She is a good example of what politics should be about, moderation and compromise. Nerd (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
2. A Republican with some level of sanity in this day and age? Clearly this article is as valuable as the sighting of a Unicorn. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Olympia Snowe's story demonstrates how liberals and conservatives are becoming increasingly polarized and the space for moderates is vanishing. Spud (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Keep. It's worth writing about these kinds of people and I already said, she's among those in the party that realize how rotten to the core the GOP has currently become. ^{— Unsigned, by: LeftyGreenMario / talk / contribs}

   @LeftyGreenMario You forgot to sign, miss! Nerd (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

   Oh, poop. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

5. I've retracted my previous vote to delete and now wish for this article to stay. This is due to the recent additions and revisions done by @Nerd. Well done! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
6. Keep, as per others. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Goat

• I don't support delete but more of a brief mention in a list of the more moderate people who served in the party. Why she left is pretty notable thing, as she echoes sentiments expressed by other former Republicans. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Same as above. Nerd (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• A moderate Republican would fit in the Cryptozoology category these days. It'd be a shame to lose all the content even if it's hard to justify the missionality. --Gospatric (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  I've found all the moderate republicans ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe it needs some rewriting to emphasize that she retired from politics because she thought the Republicans were going too right-wing. I think that needs to be briefly mentioned in the introduction. Really, until I got to the penultimate paragraph, I was thinking, "Seems like a nice lady. But so what?" I can't help thinking that she'd be more mission-worthy if instead of retiring she'd crossed the floor and joined the Democrats. Or if she'd given interviews since retiring in which she'd criticized the Republicans and Trump (which I assume she hasn't). Spud (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Spud She has, in fact. She is easily under the radar. It takes a stealth fighter to find a stealth fighter. Will update soon. Give me a bit of time, alright? Nerd (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Nerd OK. I think you've sold me on the idea of this page staying. And I am liking this Olympia Snowe lady more and more! Spud (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  I like her, too. @Spud, @LeftyGreenMario, @Gospatric @DiamondDisc1, and @DuceMoosolini I made several updates to the page. If you like what you see, please vote to keep the page. Thanks! Nerd (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

  Have done. Spud (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• There are probably a billion US politicians that aren't missional. Some days I almost feel this is just "USpoliticiansWiki". —Kazitor 07:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Kazitor Feel free and add people from the Land Down Under. Nerd (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Nerd That's not the point, the point is that many of these people aren't very relevant. Are you actually interested in the antics of [random Australian politician], are you just saying that to balance the overwhelming amount of US ones? —Kazitor 06:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Pyrenean Ibex | Result: Deleted

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

Kill

1. This article is a boring stub that has remained virtually unchanged from 2009, and even within its already-sparse content, it's just 2/3 weak jokes, so it doesn't really qualify for funspace. Maybe you can merge it to cloning, but the content is so pathetic, I'd rather just a subsection gets recreated and expanded, as I think the subject is interesting and doesn't deserve this stub treatment. Its talk page is weirdly much more expansive but it's not interesting either, just trite troll-feeding. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
2. If I never have to see the words 'Goat Smegma" again, it'll be too fucking soon. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Kill it with fire! Nerd (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Per all.-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Completely unreferenced. How do we know it's even true? Spud (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Preserve

1. you guys are nuts. harmless article. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Surgery/redirect

1. Sources are easily found. Merge to Cloning. --Gospatric (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

John Ball | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Crappy stub, needs more depth. DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Ten years and not much has happened. Doesn't seem deserving of a whole article; can it be merged into something else? —Kazitor 06:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Fine to delete. Bongolian (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
4. An article about the Peasants' Revolt would be worth having. But not this crappy stub about one of the people involved in it. Spud (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Delete. I might look into making a Peasant's Revolt article at some point, though. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 11:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
6. Let him rest in peace. Nerd (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Bayes' theorem and jurisprudence | Result: Moved to essay space

Bayes' theorem and jurisprudence (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This doesn't really seem to address anything more than a pet theory, and doesn't relate to the actual reality of american common law or any other nation's jurisprudence at all. Essayspace would be fine by me. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. I'd change it to essayspace. That's the place for pet theories. Otherwise, can't say much for it either way as seeing formulas, percentages, decimals always glazes my eyes. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
2. I agree. It would be better if this was an essay. TheEOE (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
3. It is an essay, and a reasonably good one. Worth saving. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷom teḱs. 23:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

   Well, if you mean it's properly wikiformatted and reasonably structured, yeah, I can say it's "good" in that sense. In terms of making a cogent point... not so sure. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 13:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

4. Essay Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Agreed. Move to essay space. Spud (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
6. Clearly an essay, and essays belong in Essayspace, not mainspace. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The Magic Sandwich Show (second request) | Result: Deleted

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/The Magic Sandwich Show
• Articles for deletion/The Magic Sandwich Show (second request)

The Magic Sandwich Show (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Tiny stub, never expanded, their website is gone, and the YouTube channel appears to be defunct. See also the first AfD for this article. Cosmikdebris (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Article gives no information on its own subject. Subject itself isn't very significant. The channel only has 12k subs and seems to have been dead for a year. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
3. After 5 years and one assassination attempt already, it's still an uninformative two-sentence stub. And it seems that it's a stub about something that could have been a major thing in the skeptical world but ended up quietly dying a death without anyone noticing. Put this stub out of its misery. Spud (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Per all. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Pretty pointless and was never improved. TheEOE (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
6. I vote 4 murder.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 03:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
7. Sadly this article must perish, for the good of all... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Donald Trump | Result: Keep. But use this category wisely and sparingly.

Category:Donald Trump (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. An entire category for what, people he's spoken with or that support him? What exactly is the point of categorising everything tangentially related to one person? —Kazitor 01:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   Why do we need this? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   @GrammarCommie Please indent, and cross the whole thing out. Nerd (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

2. This is another example of the RationalWiki taxonomy run amok. The justification for creating this was "we have a lot of articles on Trumpf, so let's create a new category." It was a good idea when it was created, seems rather "meh" now. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
3. We don't need a category for any and every mention of Trump. Ten years from now, no one will give a shit about Trump.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 05:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   @CheeseburgerFace Please indent, and cross the whole thing out. Nerd (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   As someone who reads history as a hobby, I'm not entirely sure about that. Even if he turns out to be largely insignificant, collective amnesia is ill-advised. Nerd (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   When something is forgotten, it happens again. That's why WWII memorials have "Lest we Forget" written on them in big letters. — Dysk (contribs) 16:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   Ten years!? It'll probably take 40-50 years before we can get a good grasp of a president's legacy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   That he would be forgotten in 10 years is wishful thinking. "…neither temporal nor geographic distance improves one’s perception of the president’s multitudinous and outrageous misdeeds."—Jennifer Rubin[1] Bongolian (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep: it's not for people he's only spoken to. It's for people/institutions corrupted by him, already corrupt and sucking up to his corruption, or otherwise part of the cabal of autocracy. I think it's particularly useful as the Mueller investigation progresses. If there's someone in the category who's just tangentially connected to Trump, I'd be all for removing them from the category. Bongolian (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
2. We have at least two more years of Trump's presidency left, a series of rapidly expanding FBI investigations, and a Trump page which seems to be having chunks sliced off into their own articles. In other words, the number of Trump articles will likely increase, making this category necessary for simple convenience. I won't get upset if it's deleted, but I do think it'll be a mistake. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
3. I support a clean up. Trump administration individuals (like Ajit Pai) can be in a subcategory of people who has ever been in his administration. Scrub Trump supporters (like National Rifle Association, Roy Moore, Kanye West, Fox News, Focus on the Family) and tangentially related articles (Don't feed the Troll, Elizabeth Warren, Tabloid, Kakistocracy). Keep elements directly related to Trump such as Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, Great Wall of America, Trump's War: His Battle for America, Trump-Russia connection, the funspace stuff, Pissgate and the articles that otherwise mention his name like Rhetoric of Donald Trump. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   @LeftyGreenMario I would support that motion. Shall we put it to a vote? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   1. Sure. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
   2. That's fine. Bongolian (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
   3. Unsurprisingly, I support this motion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
   4. Wholeheartedly support. Spud (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
   5. As do I. Nerd (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
   6. This doesn't need a vote. Obviously it should be trimmed. —Kazitor 22:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
   7. A cleanup would be a great solution. Perhaps add some text to the top of the category page that describes what one should use as criteria for including in an article. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

4. I thought of proposing something similar to what @LeftyGreenMario just did. Only topics or people with direct links to the Kremlin Trump should belong to that category. Nerd (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Per LGM's suggestion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
6. Yes! Keep the category. Just don't overuse or abuse it. Spud (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
7. —HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 19:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Rename to Category:President Fart per well known British usage. — Dysk (contribs) 20:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. However, I do think someone needs to do some spring cleaning. There are a lot of pages in that category that seem to have only the slightest connection to Trump. I think a smaller, more focused category for Trump articles would be more useful than the bloated mess we have now. I think it would also be more useful than nothing. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   My concern is that if you were to reduce it to the relevant articles, there wouldn't be enough left to justify the category. —Kazitor 02:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   Minimum element amount per category is recommended to be three. I believe even after scrubbing, we'll have enough to salvage. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

2. I cleaned up the category and created a new category Category:Trump administration. If you want to discuss about category definitions and any more refinement, go ahead. I don't know if people involved in the Russia thing should be part of the category or not. I left Roy Cohn in there because he seems influential on Trump's past, being Trump's attorney and introducing Trump to mafia figures. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

   @LeftyGreenMario I don't think that's the best renaming unless we add another category. The reason is that it excludes people involved in the Trump transition team/Trump campaigning who have been or are likely to be ensnared by the Trump-Russia investigation (e.g., Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen & Roger Stone). Bongolian (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

   @Bongolian I thought that was exactly the sort of cruft that we were removing. —Kazitor 22:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

   @Kazitor Doesn't it include people in the Trump-Russia connection, as stated above by @LeftyGreenMario? Surely Manafort (indicted) + Richard Gates III (guilty plea) should at least be there. Stone + Rohabacker + Michael Cohen are at least getting close to being there. Bongolian (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

   I don't follow this stuff enough to know; it's dull. —Kazitor 22:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

   I don't follow it that well either. I don't know how to neatly name a category that includes administration officials and campaigners. Maybe we can lump the collusion people into the Trump category and expand the category a little. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

   Yes, let's put the non-administration Trump-Russsia people back into the main Trump category. That should satisfy most people I think. Bongolian (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Help:Howtohint | Result: Merged into RationalWiki:Newcomers

Help:Howtohint (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Devoid of content, and the talk page indicates nobody knows what should be there. —Kazitor, ^pending 03:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. This page could be fun. —ClickerClock_{💾 talk.txt} 04:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   But what would its content be? —Kazitor, ^pending 04:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   Oh, I see you've given it a bit of a makeover. Is the title appropriate though? —Kazitor, ^pending 04:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

   Ok a change of name is appropriate. —ClickerClock_{💾 talk.txt} 04:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

2. It might conceivably be of some interest, inspiration, or usefulness to someone even if there's not much material there, and because it's not in mainspace, leaving it around seems harmless. --Gospatric (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. The contents of the page seems to me to be just very basic advice for a very fundamental part of learning. It can probably be just part of RationalWiki:Newcomers as it's way too vague to be located in any other help page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
2. DuceMoosolini^{Novus Forum Romanum} 19:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Merge the first paragraph into RationalWiki:Newcomers and delete the "Steal this stuff" paragraph. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Fun:Goatse | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Really not the sort of page we should have, even if it is in funspace. —Kazitor, ^pending 04:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
2. What's the point of this page?! Nerd (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
3. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
4. It's really outlived it's humorousness. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
5. From the talk page: "Really? Are we all sniggering 12-year-olds? People who are interested in Goatse can piss off to ED. Let's get rid of this." and that was back in 2011. Nothing about this has changed. 109.204.116.189 (talk) (Sophie) 109.204.116.189 (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
6. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. It's goaty. Bongolian (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
2. But it's goat tho.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 02:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

   Just because it starts with same four letters? Weak. —Kazitor, ^pending 02:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

   Spiro will do that to you.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 02:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

3. Seems harmless. It's only a funspace page, after all. DuceMoosolini^{Novus Forum Romanum} 19:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Goat

• I don't get it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• There could be a larger discussion of what constitutes grounds for deleting Funspace pages. I don't think there's any clear policy. Would it be non-missionality? A lot could be deleted. Would it be not fun? It's rather subjective. Bongolian (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  Regardless of the general case, I really don't think we should have a page about an old shock image; it's not a particularly good look. —Kazitor, ^pending 03:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study | Result: Deleted

Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This article is a stub created in 2007 just to fill a red link, which is a major no-no in Wiki editing. Despite over ten years of existing, it has only 200 bytes of information added since created (and literally no actual content, just templates, categories, and see also link) and remains pathetic. I think the only reason it links from a lot of articles is that it's part of navigation templates. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Delete. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Literally two sentences long. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Yet another creationist book? Yawn. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Sam Francis | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Needs way more depth. DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 04:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
2. OK Bongolian (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Doesn't seem interesting enough for an article. DuceMoosolini^{Novus Forum Romanum} 15:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
4. There's not much we can really do with him. He's dead, so he kinda missed his chance to nab the spotlight by loving Trump or something. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Nothing of significance here, I'm afraid. Nerd (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Fun:Realist left | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Not fun, merely deleted content moved to funspace to dodge a talkpage consensus. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Candidate for speedy deletion. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
3. What on Earth did I just read? Nerd (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
4. Delete. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
5. @LuodiWang
   
   (but in seriousness it's not a good idea to skirt consensus like that) --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Snaphanen | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Needs more information. 💠💿☝️ (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
2. I did some poking around. This page won't get any better unless we have someone who speaks Danish and is willing to do the legwork. I don't think we do. DuceMoosolini^{Novus Forum Romanum} 05:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Is this person that significant? I doubt it. Nerd (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
4. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 01:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Goat

• Do we have a section for webshites in other languages? It could be better off there. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Joey Watkins | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. I don's see how this page is missional. Bongolian (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Miscarriages of justice aren't obviously missional, unless perhaps there is a particular issue with the forensic science or some important political significance or some other way it involves crank ideas. But nothing currently there to justify missionality. Maybe there is another wiki for this sort of thing? --Gospatric (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
3. From the opening edit summary: "Grabbed page from Wikipedia because they are killing it." Uh, no, that's not what RW is for. Boredatwork (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

   We have at least once taken a deleted article from WP, but it was missional in that case. It was deleted on WP because it wasn't notable enough for WP, which is not a criterion on RW. Bongolian (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

4. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 01:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Goat

I'm new around here, don't fully know your rules obviously, including what is "goat" for. The thing about the case that bugs me the most is that the State obviously knows something is wrong; why else would they refuse to allow anyone to copy the trial audio; why else would the key computer printout disappear; why else would they move the shooting two minutes later; why else would the do a whole bunch of other things that aren't in the article yet -- disappeared 911 call records, "rule out" the person who was responsible for another shooting at roughly the same time based on a handwritten number that suggests the other shooting was at too close a time for the alternate suspect to have done both. So it's not just a "miscarriage of justice". It's more a "conspiracy to railroad the defendant."

The other reason I was hoping it might be a fit here is that you have to use your brain to see clearly what is going on. Particularly the part about making a series of highly-likely-to-impossible assumptions.

If y'all do accept this, I'm likely to do other articles on cases where the authorities have the wrong person in prison for effectively a life sentence, ought to know it, and won't do anything about it. It's way to common; off the top of my head, I can think of examples in Maryland, Georgia (this one), Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma. Texas also has some, but they at least seem to care; a lot of cases they have fixed, and others they are investigating -- slower than one would like, but they are working on it.

Getting it wrong is one thing, but when it's proven that you have made a mistake and you won't do anything about it, that's a problem.TwoPlusTwoIsFive (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

1. @TwoPlusTwoIsFive: To keep this article here, you would need to show that it's missional, basically that it relates to any of pseudoscience, anti-science, crankery, authoritarianism, or fundamentalism. Real criminal conspiracies — as opposed to imagined ones — are not missional unless they involve authoritarianism. Bongolian (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's go to the Authoritarianism article. Right up front, it says "It is this honoring of power over reason that makes an authoritarian." That describes this case perfectly. Reason, as explained in the article, shows that Watkins couldn't have done it. But by pretending to apply the rules of criminal law, the State has the power to keep him locked up, and they do. Moving down in the article, we see "the rules themselves aren't the source of power and they don't apply to the powerful". One of the rules of criminal law is that you are supposed to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant. But the critical portion of the 911 computer printout disappears, they say it was "lost", and they don't turn it over to Watkins. There are other cases of disappearing evidence not mentioned in the article; one of the assertions at trial was that Watkins had shot Dawkins' dog. Ballistics tests were done that did not find any similarities between the bullet in the dog and the bullet in Dawkins; again, this was not turned over to the defense, and Undisclosed found out about it after doing a lot of searching for their podcast. Next the Authoritarianism article says that "Usually the first step for any would-be authoritarian is to arrange blanket exemptions to civil and constitutional protections and . . . to give power to armed forces or to the police to act outside of the law." Other than the word "blanket", this again fits -- clearly Watkins was repeatedly denied civil liberties, and the police acted outside the law with respect to him. The upshot is that this type of wrongful conviction -- the one where the authorities have reason to know they are going after the wrong person and do so anyway -- is a step in an Authoritarian direction.TwoPlusTwoIsFive (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@TwoPlusTwoIsFive I'm pretty open to your authoritarianism justification, but I have questions. The way I see it, there are two reasons a miscarriage of justice could have happened: the state is incompetent, or the state is intentionally fast-tracking an innocent man into prison for political reasons. Unless I've had some major lapse in reading comprehension, the article doesn't address this. If it's the former issue, the state being incompetent, I don't really think the authoritarianism justification applies. Thus, it's not Rationalwiki's problem. If it's the latter issue, then you need to figure out what the state's motives are and explain them in the article. If we're going to justify its existence based on the state's misuse of power, then that needs to be a much bigger part of the article. Authoritarianism is why a Stalinist show-trial would be missional, but a simple case of judicial stupidity would not. You need to prove that the state is acting in a hostile manner and explain why. If you do that, or else demonstrate that you intend to do that sometime in the near future, I'll oppose its deletion and encourage everyone else to do so. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 05:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@TwoPlusTwoIsFive By the way, I also wanted to say that if this doesn't pan out, please don't make this your last article. I like the article itself, and I highly respect that this seems to be a subject you have a passion for. And I'm 100% sure that there are a plethora of high-profile cases where the US judiciary has railroaded some poor fecker for being a pawn in a game that was bigger than them. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 05:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@DuceMoosoliniI just saw this; I had given up on the discussion in light of the way it appeared to be going. No, it definitely was not just stupidity. I laid out my reasons for this above. As to what the actual motive was, that tends to be difficult to prove and may not be the same for all of the people responsible. Typically, what one can do is say "look at X, Y, and Z; the people responsible had to know they were doing the wrong thing. Yet they continued. Therefore, they had a motive other than what they were claiming." But they will typically not want to leave written records of their actual motive, and even if they do, it can be difficult getting the records to prove it. Furthermore, the motive may differ from person to person. One person may be the "prime mover"; another may be simply trying to keep their paycheck and job; a third may actually be doing their job correctly, and be getting used by others who are not. That said, the actual motive may be as simple as the cops will look bad if the murder isn't pinned on someone, so they find someone they think they can pin it on and do so. And if the actual killer becomes clear to them later in the investigation, they may think it would look bad to say "we had it wrong; here is the right person," so they continue going after the original target. That's not always the reason, but it often happens. I assume I'm not allowed to name anyone here, but this may be relevant [2]; in particular, the person was accused of another shooting on a highway near Rome, Georgia that day, whose time was also disputed, and based on ambiguous handwritten records, the police said that latter shooting happened at 7:25, and was too far away from the Dawkins shooting for them both to have been done by the same person. The 7:25 time came from the "time received" on this image. [3] I don't know if that middle digit is actually a "2" or not; what I do know is that if I were doing a murder investigation, I'd want better evidence than that to rule out an otherwise strong suspect. Don't confuse the "time dispatched"; that was written later, probably by a different person from the person who wrote the "time received". And yeah, the electronic records with from that one are missing too; again they would have shown an indisputable time. Another article? The problem is that the proof here is stronger than what one typically sees in these cases; if y'all don't want this one, I don't have much hope for the others.TwoPlusTwoIsFive (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

List of skeptical fiction books | Result: Deleted

List of skeptical fiction books (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Barely missional. No sensical criteria given. Bad examples. Nobody would really be interested in this Benn (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Sadly, this is not worth keeping. I'm sure that the person who created this page nearly 5 years ago would have imagined that by now it would be a great long list of dozens of books with lots of links to pages about books and authors. Instead, the page still just lists the same six books that it did when it was created. And without many links to pages about the books or their authors, the list remains just that, a list. A list without any real context to make it meaningful. Spud (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Wikipedia's version is more comprehensive, so even if we tried expanding this page, it would borrow heavily from there. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Basically just a list of random books. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 05:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Missional, self explanatory, decent examples, I'm interested in this. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Fereydoon Batmanghelidj | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. Not worth having an article on. 【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. It's missional, and it has potential for some expansion, as it's detailed on QuackWatch and Science-Based Medicine. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
2. uh, what? Short, but 100% missional and informative. No reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Anybody open to merging it with water woo? DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 05:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Abu Hamza al-Masri | Result: Deleted

Abu Hamza al-Masri (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not substantial. DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Not that well-referenced either. While it's tangentially missional (being calls for authoritarianism), I don't really see the importance of keeping this page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
3. I don't think it's that important either. Dude's already in prison, ain't he? DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 05:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Patriot Action Network | Result: Keep by a very narrow margin

Patriot Action Network (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This group's website is long gone; the group appears to have devolved into an obscure facebook group that regurgitates typical trumpist conservative news articles. Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. I think it's worth keeping if the dead links can be updated to archived ones. The director in 2014, Darla Dawald,[4] has had political ambitions.[5] Bongolian (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

   Once Dawald joins the political arena, then maybe we can start documenting, especially if the person receives attention? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

2. Seems missional. The article covers a bit of what they do.

William Blum | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. Article does not adequately justify its existence. DiamondDisc1|1csiDdnomaiD (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. While I think the subsections are unnecessary, I don't see what's wrong to having a short article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
2. There's room for missional expansion, I think. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 05:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Paul Washer | Result: No consensus

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

Delete

1. Not exactly relevant;guy said some things in the early 2000s and that was pretty much it. ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. I'd keep the article, remove the stub notice, and just tolerate how the article is short, but sweet. I don't think these kinds of people should be forgotten because there's a lot of people like this person out there.^{— Unsigned, by: LeftyGreenMario / talk / contribs}

Michael Mukasey | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Unsubstantial and is barely missional. 💠💿☝️ (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Same as above. Nerd (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. The article as it stands doesn't suggest he's worthy of an article. He has been linked with Rudy Giuliani and Trump[6][7][8] so maybe he will become more relevant, although he could probably still be covered in an article on Trump's legal team. We don't normally keep articles around in case the subject becomes notable though. --Gospatric (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Eastern Churches | Result: Turned into a redirect to a note on the Eastern Orthodox Church page

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

Delete

1. Just a list of Eastern Churches, nothing substantial. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with the article on Eastern Orthodox Church. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Yes, merge with Eastern Orthodox. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 16:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
3. I agree. This has no substance.^{— Unsigned, by: Benn / talk / contribs}
4. Merging into Eastern Orthodox Church is the sensible thing to do. Spud (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Veggie Tales | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Might deserve one sentence in some kind of article about Christianity in the media. Most is totally irrelevant, and I barely understand anything about the show, except that the bible is in it. Benn (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
2. —ClickerClock (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Not missional.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 14:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Irrelevant page. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Unless there's debunking and/or controversy involved instead of a mere summary of the show, this article shouldn't be here. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Mark Meechan | Result: Keep

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

Keep

1. No, actual news in the UK - David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
2. I'm withdrawing my vote to delete based on recent additions to the article linking him to the far right. Bongolian (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Changing vote to keep. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. Let's give the creator a bit of time to salvage it, shall we? Spriggina (razgovor) (doprinosi) @ 03:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
2. It's missional and since the event Dankula has spoken at far-right events and received support from the likes of Lauren Southern and Jordan Peterson, so he may be able to parlay this incident into wider nutty alt-right celebrityhood.[9][10][11] Or he may vanish. Maybe we should wait a bit? Certainly there is more to be said about the court case and his supporters. --Gospatric (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
3. This was not just YouTube drama. This was really big news in the UK a few months ago. BBC Radio 5 Live pretty much dedicated an entire afternoon to discussing it. And I remember thinking that it was prime RW stuff while listening to it. Mind you, several recently deleted pages have been about people whose names were in the headlines 3 or 4 years ago and who have now been completely forgotten. And it looks like Mark Meechan is just another person whose had his 15 minutes of infamy and won't get it again. Spud (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Tightrope Forum | Result: Speedily deleted

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

Delete

1. The forum no longer exists (a snapshot of the forum's front page from 2015 exists in internet archives). The parent site is an obscure white supremacy webshite that sells various trinkets and junk and offers MP3 downloads of similarly-themed "music." An entry for Tightrope already exists on the Racialism webshites page. Recommend expanding that entry and deleting the article. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
2. The forum is no longer active, and the page has no content that can't be conveyed by its entry on Webshites. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Dead article for a dead website DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 19:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Athorism | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. It's a parody term that really doesn't need a full article. ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 05:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
2. A stub that can't be expanded upon. Spud (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
3. We don't need it. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 17:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
4. I don't see how this deserves a separate article here! Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with Reductio ad absurdum. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Per. I think this argument should also be present in any other articles dealing with "atheism is a religion" argument, if it isn't already. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Not with Reductio ad absurdum but with something similar to Fun:Gods Christians don't believe in. —Kazitor, ^pending 10:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Paganistan | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Short; this could be merged with the neopagan article if people feel like it. ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Definitely doesn't need a page to itself. And I don't think it's worth merging into a larger article either. Spud (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Add to the religious glossary being thought of on the to-do list. Benn (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure it merits a whole article but it seems relevant to coverage of paganism and there are better sources: Neopaganism in Minnesota has a pile of refs, and there's even a book. --Gospatric (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Goat

• Could be merged, but I don't know if information is relevant. I'm kind of torn. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Philip Cross | Result: Merged

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

Delete

1. Not missional CowHouse (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Other than documenting some internet drama and spreading his personal information over the internet, what purpose does this article serve? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise}

   This is a pseudonym, no doxing is going on and I would never do doxing. Dysklyver (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

   In that case if the article survives this AfD you might want to edit the "Outing" section to reflect that claim. In fact, a good chunk (if not all) of this article could easily be summarized as "far-left British MP George Galloway gets into fight with anonymous Wikipedia user" without losing much in the way of substance. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

   Or we could just zap the article and stick that paragraph in George Galloway, there's no point having a short article. Dysklyver (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. The conflict with George Galloway suggests a merge of some or all of the content would be possible with that article. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
2. This site is (probably) here to document politics and conspiracy theories and other related things that occupy the imagination of people. This has occupied the time of a good few important journalists, the Russian media, Wikipedians, and the prominent English politician George Galloway. It even ended up on the BBC several times. I say it's on-topic, or I would not have written the damn thing in the first place. All that said, it's highly debatable if it needs a whole article, summary merging to George Galloway would be fine. Dysklyver (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Worth merging with the Galloway article. I think the referencing here is somewhat sucky though: we should be exceptionally dubious and clear about citations of Russian media sources (e.g., Sputnik & Kremlin Post). That is not currently the case. Bongolian (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
4. The whole article is about Galloway. Merge Benn (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
5. If the person who created the page now thinks it should be merged into the George Galloway one, then it should be merged into the George Galloway one. Spud (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback, I have summarised a short paragraph into the George Galloway article, minus all the cruft and not using the dubious Russian material. Dysklyver (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The Orb Project | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Needs way more depth and it's short. D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
2. The orb page itself isn't very long. We certainly don't need this stubby page on a book about orbs as well. I think that, just like we don't aim to document every single person who holds crank ideas, we should be selective as far as which books we have articles about too. There are thousands of books about woo (ones that debunk and ones that big it up). We can't have articles about all of them. But we can have articles abut some of the most famous and influential ones. Spud (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
3. This is one of the worst stubs on this site. Delete with extreme prejudice. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Bad. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 17:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Terrible, and half of it is about orbs themselves rather than the book. Boredatwork (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
6. As per above. Mike V • Talk 23:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Nerd | Result: Moved to Funspace

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

Delete

1. Not missional. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
2. —Kazitor, ^pending 07:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Once you delete, make sure you remove the resulting red links. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Pointless. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 04:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Pointless. Christopher (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Move to Funspace. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Yes. Move to Funspace. What a great idea! That gets rid of the problem of leaving hundreds of red links behind. Spud (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Add a couple of snarky comments and funize it. Boredatwork (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
4. To Funspace Comrades!!!!! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC) 23:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Changed my mind because this option prevents the broken links problem. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 17:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Congo Free State Hecatomb denial | Result: Deleted due to plagiarism

Congo Free State Hecatomb denial (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. It looks like a lot of the material in this article was copied from Wikipedia. Bongolian (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

   Which Wikipedia articles is it copied from? Wikipedia doesn't have an article called "Congo Free State Hecatomb denial". Spud (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

   • "The first international protest over Congo atrocities was in 1890 when George Washington Williams, an American, published an open letter to Leopold about abuses he had witnessed." vs. "The first international protest occurred in 1890 when George Washington Williams, an American, published an open letter to Leopold about abuses he had witnessed." (Atrocities in the Congo Free State)
   • "In 1895, the situation in the Congo was reported to Dr Henry Grattan Guinness (1861–1915), a missionary doctor." vs. "In 1895, the situation was reported to Dr Henry Grattan Guinness (1861–1915), a missionary doctor." (Casement Report)
   • Other examples can be found.

   These are not exact liftings, but they're close enough that the page does not look very original in the main. The onus on fixing this should be on the person who created this page, and they haven't responded, so it should be deleted unless they create a less piratical page. Bongolian (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

   Can you run a plagiarism check on these sorts of things? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

   Well, the page was created less than 24 hours ago and its creator has had less than 24 hours to respond to Bongolian's message. I'll withhold judgement for a few days. Spud (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

   It fails the grammarly plagiarism checker.[12] Bongolian (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

2. OK. If it fails that plagiarism test, it should be deleted. Spud (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Vaporise it and start over. Nothing else, due the the results of the plagarism test. — Saj ^∞ 07:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
4. This one makes me angry because I think we really do need an article on that subject. But instead of putting a bit of effort into it, the author plagiarized everything, so we have to delete it. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 17:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Plagiarism should not be tolerated. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. The subject matter is missional, so I think it just needs heavy revision by somebody interested in it. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 17:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Depending on the response the creator gives us. — Saj ^∞ 06:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Is this the same person who posted a whole load of Congo Free State Wikipedia copypasta a couple of months ago? Boredatwork (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

   It's a new account but it could be the same person. Bongolian (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

John A. Keel | Result: Keep

John A. Keel (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Needs more depth, also short. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Perfectly missional. Boredatwork (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Not a stub, so shouldn't be deleted. If you think it's too short, John A. Keel is a popularizer of the men in black thing so you can explore possible merge options. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Missional, seems like there's more to say about him, and there isn't a good merge target since he was involved in both men in black and Mothman and you can't merge to both. --Gospatric (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Sources needed. Otherwise fine. Spud (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Keep and expand per above. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with Men in Black. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Arcology | Result: Merged and redirected to suburban sprawl

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

Delete

1. Short. DiamondDisc1|1csiDdnomaiD (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Lengthen. Boredatwork (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. It seems to be an offshoot of suburban sprawl (created in reaction to that phenomenon) so maybe it can get a subsection in that article instead. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Agree. Merge into suburban sprawl. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 05:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Merge with suburban sprawl. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst | Result: Deleted

Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Isn't really missional. 【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
2. I don't think this guy is (for lack of a better word) important enough for us to justify giving him his own article. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 05:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Aside from being non-notable, this has nothing to do with the topic of the wiki. Bad behavior from a bishop is not automatically a sign of irrationality or pseudoscience.user:Vivisectionist
4. Uh, I don't see where it's missional. Delete swiftly and with extreme prejudice. Сприггина (яриа) (хувь нэмэр) @ 03:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. A cleric who missspent diocese funds doesn't really justify a full article but he could go in a list of naughty vicars if we have such a thing. Boredatwork (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

What Doctors Don't Tell You | Result: Keep

What Doctors Don't Tell You (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Too short, needs more detail. 【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Seems like it can be satisfactorily expanded. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 04:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Perfectly missional. Boredatwork (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
3. It's our brand of crazy. Spud (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Missional and important. Bad deletion reason - David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Goat

• The biggest problem with the article is that it's telling us, not showing is, and none of its statements are backed up by anything. Anyhow, I looked at the site, and I was repeatedly harassed by overlay offers that prompt me to sign up to get nice things, whatever. That overlay nagged me three times even though I stayed on the page. They also have a store, of course. Some howlers: https://www.wddty.com/news/2018/05/poison-centres-get-29-calls-a-day-for-adhd-drug-reactions.html. "The drugs are stimulants that have a paradoxical calming effect on hyperactive children" <- that's not quite true. "Fever is the body's natural defense against cancer", basically "if you get a fever, you're less likely to get cancer". Enzyme blends. I don't know, this seems like an article that should stay, just needs a rewrite. If you want me to do it, well, I guess I can. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Smooth-talking bastards | Result: Deleted

Category:Smooth-talking bastards (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Doesn't seem a very meaningful category; no inclusion criteria; contains entries that don't seem to really fit. Yisfidri (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Not useful. —Kazitor, ^pending 23:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
3. It sounds like a category for calm-sounding con people but this is an end-of-the-page jab with no utility otherwise. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
4. -DiamondDisc1(talk) 06:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
5. This has to go the same way as Category:Batshit crazy and Category:Bullshit. I presume that a bt can remove every page from this category as well. Spud (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
6. Yet another useless, "snarky" category. Burn it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
7. This category doesn't really serve any good purpose. Like the Batshit Crazy, Insufferable Assholes, and Bullshit categories. TheEOE (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I knew there was another silly category that ha been deleted recently. Thank you for reminding me of it. Spud (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Trim and assign as meta-category

1. Keep but purge it and use it as a meta-category. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Goat

• The category page itself doesn't even describe exactly what it's supposed to be for. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 01:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Glynn Harrison | Result: Keep

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Glynn Harrison
• Articles for deletion/Glynn Harrison 2018

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

Delete

1. Poorly written and unlikely to be expanded on. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Per Grammarcommie. --san (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) 00:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Per all.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 06:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. I think it's missional and has enough content to be its own article. I'm not content with the red links, but I don't see what's particularly wrong about this article aside from being short and being short for a long time. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

   @LeftyGreenMario While possibly missional (some debate about the validity of the claims was brought up shortly after the page's creation) it has none the less been neglected for quite some time, to the point where it lacks even a navbar. If it could be brought up to some level of formatting quality, a few more sources cited, and the redlinks either removed or transformed to wpl templates I might be persuaded to change my vote. However, the lack of even a Wikipedia article on such a supposedly controversial figure still leaves me deeply troubled. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

   I don't think minor formatting problems is quite enough to delete an article. The lack of a Wikipedia article does indicate a lack of interest and resources that is needed to expand the article, and that's problematic in the future. But why not keep the article short as long as the documentation is to the best ability? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

   @LeftyGreenMario As I said above, I do not believe that the article documenting the subject to the best of it's ability. The information is appears to be outdated, and the formatting leaves much to be desired. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

2. Missional. He's been covered in some depth in the Guardian[13] and there's articles by him and lengthy discussion of his work on evangelical Christian blogs and media.[14][15][16][17][18][19] His book The Big Ego Trip attacking self-help culture might also be missional.[20][21] He's written/co-written creepy-sounding and very missional texts about religion and homosexuality such as "Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction: Issues of Pastoral and Counselling Support".[22] The fact that he doesn't have a Wikipedia article seems a good reason for keeping; although he seems to meet Wikipedia's notability standards for academics and I don't know if there was an article deleted there. Deleting because it doesn't have an info box or you don't like the formatting is trivial. It's true that it requires work, but this is a wiki, so there's nothing wrong with that. --Gospatric (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
3. I'm convinced, though I would advise someone other than myself expand on this article using the sources above, since I am a terrible writer. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Nakba | Result: Merged into Palestine

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

Delete

1. Doesn't explain why the term is missional. DiamondDisc1|1csiDdnomaiD (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. I think we should take whatever unique/important information is in that article and toss it over to Israel or Palestine. DuceMoosolini (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
2. At the risk of resurrecting the massive Israel/Palestine-related HCM of a couple of years back, yes let's move this to one of those two articles. Wilder^Bicycle 15:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Agreed. In additon I suggest the Palestine article, given the nature of the term. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Per all. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Earth | Result: Kept

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

Delete

1. This article is nonmissional and just contains facts. All the debunking is in the Age of the Earth, Evidence against a recent creation, and Rotation of the Earth. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 23:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Agree with LeftyGreenMario. Also, I don't think the page is bad, to be honest. DuceMoosolini 00:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Science articles are within our purview. However, we should actually get around to creating separate categories for the two halves our content sometime in the near future. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Mostly harmless. Boredatwork (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

   Formerly just "harmless". ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

4. Save the Earth! Spud (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Goat

• You have to keep in mind that we have facts-only articles on general things like biology, mathematics, Venus, Jupiter, solar system, Black hole, and so on. Heck, we have an entire category of planets. You can't single out Earth, and methinks this calls to attention for coverage discussion overall, so I don't think this particular AfD is appropriate. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Blaise Pascal | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Cool guy, but the article doesn't explain why it's missional. 【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Cruise Control^(Manual!) 06:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
3. I don't see the relevance of this at all. "Pascal's triangle is a useful tool in applying the binomial theorem and anything else that might use the binomial notation" and "he made a number of important discoveries about the cycloid" might be wonderful news for maths nerds but how does it apply to refutations of pseudoscience or authoritarianism? What even is a cycloid? This is just a fan page with no relevance to the mission. Begone with it. Boredatwork (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Above reasons.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 17:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. It's a stub, but it could be useful. Benn (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Magna Carta | Result: Kept

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

Delete

1. It's quite small. 【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Make it bigger. Needs more about what it says compared to what people think it says. Its constant misreading by FOTLs deserves a closer look instead of a passing mention. Boredatwork (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
2. I added a section on how you can use the Magna Carta to avoid paying any taxes to the UK government. There's a lot of crazy stuff about this. --Gospatric (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
3. It's missional, surely. —Kazitor, ^pending 12:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Keep, it's missional beyond a shadow of a doubt in my eyes. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
5. It looks like getting nominated for deletion gave this article the boot up the arse that it needed. Spud (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Miklos Horthy | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Does not seem very missional. He has no real association with pseudoscience, and a tenuous one with cranks. A bit of useful information could be merged. Also, why so many attacks on the Austro-Hungarian navy? Benn (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Terrible writing by drive-by editor who seemes to have mistaken this site for a ten-years-ago version of Cracked.com, but that's not grounds for deletion. What is, though, is the micro-relevance of the subject. Is changing your mind about Hitler really enough justification for an article? Boredatwork (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Not very missional or relevant.-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Marginally missional subject, and the article as it is doesn't treat the subject well. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep. I think it's missional in the same way as Franco and Salazar. As it is, the article is trash, but I think it can be improved. DuceMoosolini (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
2. We should keep this article. However, if we do so it requires a sever overhaul in bringing it up to snuff. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. I take issue with this article for being incorrectly named. His name was Miklós Horthy. That's Miklós wit an ó, not Miklos with your ordinary bog standard o. I would have moved the page when it was first created but I can't produce that character on my keyboard. (I was able to produce it just now thanks to the Special characters box.) I guess it will now have to stay incorrectly named unti we decide whether to keep it or not.Spud (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

   Changed.-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Slovakia | Result: Delete

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

Delete

1. Can't we just delete all these European country stubs? ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Yes we should. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Yes. Delete this and all other European country stubs. Spud (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep, but on the condition somebody adds specific information about Slovakia as a Nazi puppet state. DuceMoosolini (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Basement | Result: No consensus after 16 days, it stays

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

Delete

1. This page is one of the odder fork pages on a site full of them. Many of these have no relation or reason to be confused for each other. Benn (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
2. This is not how disambiguation pages work. They work for shared entities (like kite being a disambig for the bird and the triangle thing kids fly with; bunker can refer to the war time stuff or a sandy zone in golf; World 1-2 can be the second level in Super Mario Bros. or the level in Mario Party: Star Rush), not similar entities that have parts of the element there. Other disambig pages we currently have (like Ark, Information, Chemical, Vaccine, or Homicide) also aren't appropriate use of disambiguation pages. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
3. RationalWiki:Your mother's basement could easily be renamed to the thing it actually is (requests for user rights), instead of the stupid name it currently labours under. It's only had the current name for less than eighteen months, and was changed without discussion. Boredatwork (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

   I wouldn't object to that. —Kazitor, ^pending 22:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

   Maybe keep the "dumb" one to funspace. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

   Done. Wilder^Bicycle 13:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Eh, what's the problem? Keep. Bongolian (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
2. I fail to see why this fork is up for deletion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
3. The first two seem fine. I believe the point of a lot of forks is for people typing into the search box, even if it's unlinked, and "basement" could be looking for either YMB or argumentum ad cellarium. —Kazitor, ^pending 12:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

   Ark, maybe, but fork pages aren't meant for similarishwords, synonyms, or phrases that have one of those words. Basement maybe should redirect to that argument because of the snark links but I don't see people searching basement to get to that page. But fork pages aren't, like a sort of thesaurus. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Whiteness Studies | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Per talkpage, article is homophobic sexist racism. Cruise Control^(Manual!) 05:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
2. This fails in its attempt to do RW-style humour. As I said on the article's talk page, regardless of the creator's intentions, this reads like something that a sexist, racist homophobe would write on Uncyclopedia or something like that. Editing the page to remove everything objectionable would result in there being nothing left. Spud (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Poorly written stub, poorly referenced, dubious content. Delete ASAP. Bongolian (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
4. I deleted it once before for being hateful drivel, and the original author disagreed and brought it back. I strongly recommend my previous action. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
5. I don't really think it's racist or sexist. But I also don't think it's well-written, well-sourced, funny, or possessing of any real value. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 14:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Not homophobic or racist... it is within rw humour Kingdamian1 (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

   No it's not. You can't just create a article full of racism and homophobia, and it is not debunking anything. Cruise Control^(Manual!) 07:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

   You have been saying that for a while... Can you quote a racist or homophobic quote for reference?

   stop making this article, please. if you want to work on it, start a draft. create this article again and there will be consequences. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 21:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Camilla Batmanghelidjh | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. 4 sentence stub. ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
2. OK to delete. Bongolian (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Looks like something that was written because she was in the news. Three years later, she seems to have done nothing worth mentioning. Boredatwork (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Yeah. She had her 15 minutes of fame in the British media back in 2015. She's now faded back into obscurity. Nobody's going to come here looking for information about her. Spud (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
5. Agree. I've read extensively through this wiki and I never even saw or cared about this lady. $Spriggina$ $(talk)$ $(contribs)$ @ 12:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
6. Get rid of it. DuceMoosolini (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
7. nothing missional and this stub does not even begin to explain what kids company actually did. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

• She's already mentioned in the article on her father, Fereydoon Batmanghelidj. --Gospatric (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

––another stub AMassiveGay (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Darrell Huff | Result: Keep, which is not to say that the current article isn't shit

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

Delete

1. eternal stub that doesn't seem expandable Vorarchivist (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep. He's certainly missional: someone just needs to look at a couple of his books. Also not mentioned in our stub is that wrote a book on pseudoscientific cyclical theory, titled Cycles in Your Life—The Rhythms of War, Wealth, Nature, and Human Behavior. Or Patterns in War, Wealth, Weather, Women, Men, and Nature (1964). Bongolian (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

   according to Google (it's a little obscure, but you may have heard of it) there are many reviews of his books online, which makes the article easily expandable. Wilder^Bicycle 17:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

2. Keep. Cosmikdebris (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. "Barely missional"? I think a piece on "How to Lie with Statistics" is actually pretty relevant to RationalWiki's mission (being how pro-pseudoscience folks like the global warming deniers and Fox News often botch stastistics. I think that subject can stand to have its own article, where we can document from the book how statistics and be manipulated. Not sure what we can say about Darrel Huff, but with his book, that's high potential for an article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
2. I agree with LeftyGreenMario. Georgie Enkoom (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
3. I also agree with LeftyGreenMario. DuceMoosolini (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Google Maps | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Crappy stub. (Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Yeah. Bongolian (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Utterly pointless. Wilder^Bicycle 15:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Not even worth a merge. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
5. Waste of space. Spud (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
6. Nothing worth merging. Christopher (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
7. Mike V (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with Google ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Agree with Comrade. Σπριγγίνα (ομιλία) (συνεισφορές) @ 16:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
3. It's a common "tool" for many a Conspiracy theorist. (see: enterthe5t4rz), I don't really mind what happens to this as long as it's not flat-out deleted--Spoony (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Bullshit | Result: Delete

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

Delete

1. This category falls squarely as useless as Category:Insufferable assholes (see AfD) and Category:Batshit crazy (see AfD), but it's a little more elaborate, being prettier and has sub-categories nested in there (though Category:Bullshit-related stubs has only two members, and the pretty svg isn't even used in many articles unlike the others, which are part of the nav templates). Everything is a messy conglomeration of tangentially related topics (related only because they're missional basically). We should delete this one for consistency sake. So we should delete this and the related subcategories. We've seen a previous attempt here, but I think we now have precedent, and this can be safely deleted. If this passes through, we should delete this and Category:Bullshit-related stubs. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Another one of the overgeneralized categories here that should be done away with. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Though this category might have at one time been useful as a meta-category for some of the more thoroughly discredited ideas documented on this site (Libertarianism, Communism, New age woo, etc), but in it's current overused state I would strongly recommend it be deleted, and that future editors who wish to use it as a meta-category rebuild it completely from scratch. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

   its current overused state, sir. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

4. Delete. Generally, the category contents do not correspond to the definition of the word. Bongolian (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

   I don't think we have a lot of articles on bovine fecal matter on this wiki, but I don't know. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

5. Yeah. Now that Batshit crazy and Insufferable assholes are no longer with us, I can't justify keeping this category. Spud (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. You crass liberals just can't erase your past like that, unfortunately. Categorizing anything you disagree with as "bull****," that is. --William Grimes (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

   So EiK, your justification for keeping this category is that it is useless, but you think it makes "Liberals" look bad. Do you have a real reason to vote keep, rather than using this as an excuse to hurl insults at strawmen? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

   they all sound the same --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

   I find it amusing that my raising a key flaw in your arguments appears to constitute "trolling." Nonetheless, mere dismissal of arguments using such a profanity is utterly childish and anti-intellectual. As someone who received an MDiv from Bob Jones University, I think higher standards than that should be present. --William Grimes (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

   Did you just boast about having a degree from a Diploma mill??!?!?!? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

   Seriously though, do you actually want it kept? Because your argument amounts to "it was bad when you first did it, but no way can you undo that!" To which I say, "Why not?" —Kazitor, ^pending 01:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

   Why are you even here? Just to troll? And you don't think that there's a reason that why RationalWiki calls things bullshit? I mean, the RationalWiki mission is pretty much to call out bullshit. So this category is unnecessary. Also, what GrammarCommie said. You're seriously going to dismiss our arguments because you got a diploma from here? If you're going to brag, at least talk about a degree from a real educational school, not a fundie school. TheEOE (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

   You guys, stop feeding this person. I'm confident this person's little vindictive "reasoning" won't win any voters over. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. Not sure how to vote on this one. Those other two cats were mostly unnecessary ad hominems, but this could very vaguely be useful for separating "debunking" and "background info". I feel swayed towards deletion though; maybe have a category for background information instead? —Kazitor, ^pending 01:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

   I think having a category that covers a vast portion of our wiki isn't a very useful category, particularly if the category doesn't lend to useful subcategories or the elements in the categories barely relate to one another. I think it defeats the purpose of a category, looking up related articles and whatnot. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Peter James | Result: Merged and redirected into Alterante historical chronology

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

Delete

1. Zombie article sans sources. Maybe not even (that) missional(?) ScepticWombat (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. The subject itself is missional, but this article needs a lot of work. That it is currently crappy does not really mean it needs to be deleted, just revised. സ്പ്രിഗിന (സംസാരം) (സംഭാവനകൾ) @ 13:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

   We can merge it and when it's enough to be its own article, then we can split it off. Fair enough? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

   Yes, Atlantis and alternate historical chronology (AHC) crankery is missional. However, it is currently far from clear whether Peter James has written in the vein of “I found Atlantis!!2!!” or simply a historicist/mythicist tradition that falls outside the missional genre of Atlantis crankery. If his writings are of the latter kind, he at most should be mentioned as a corrective to the actual cranks. As for AHC, if he simply repeats better known cranks (e.g. Velikovsky or Rohl), James himself is not particularly missional. Finally, the “It should be revised”-argument is all well and good, but since no one seems to care, well... ScepticWombat (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

2. Fine idea, and perfectly missional if he is an Atlantis crank. Could use some work. Benn (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
3. I agree with Spriggina. Georgie Enkoom (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Not really missional in himself, but his yet-another-atlantis-book can get a mention in Atlantis and his other history can go in Alternate historical chronology or wherever. Wilder^Bicycle 10:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

   Agree, if we can get some reference(s) as regards his book’s contents and stance vis-a-vis a “historical minimalist” or crank approach to Atlantis. Might merit a brief mention a brief notice in relation to Velikovski and/or Rohl at Alternate historical chronology, but again this requires sources. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

2. Merge as Readymade states above. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
3. Braiiiins (per all). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
4. Looks like this article could be placed into Alternate historical chronology very easily. Cosmikdebris (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Reverse engineering | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Not going to be expanded, and short. ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Doesn't seem to be missional. The content is merely a couple of examples from articles that could just as easily be put in those articles. Cosmikdebris (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Yeah, the article is really off topic. How does this relate to the mission statement? LCRex ^{(poses menacingly)} 13:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Can't see a reason to keep it. DuceMoosolini (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
5. Per all. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Jon Kyl | Result: Keep

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

Delete

#This page hasn't seen any major activity for years, and has no information other than a brief explanation of an amendment he proposed nine years ago, and a gaffe he made seven years ago. ApocalypseJimmy (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. The subject is missional, the article is sourced, so what if it's short? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Short substantial articles shouldn't have to be deleted. Even if it's not substantial, we can merge the article to this part of the Repug page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Might need some attention, but seems alright. A bit short, but not enough to be deleted. Benn (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Keep, per above. ---san (Hi!) 07:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

I see how the article is missional. How about we merge it into the list of Republicans? ApocalypseJimmy (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Kirkegaard | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. Seriously? Two people, names spelled differently. This should simply be a note at the top of each one's page about the other. Benn (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
2. GJ (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. It's worth keeping, primarily because one of them is generally just referred to as "Kirkegaard". Bongolian (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Keep. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
3. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
4. —チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 02:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
5. The names are similar enough to cause confusion. Spud (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
6. Keep per all above. ---san (Hi!) 07:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
7. Keep. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Greydon Square | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Nothing to debunk, also short and unlikely to be expanded. (Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
2. When the article was created back in January 2015, I did some basic clean up on it. In my edit summary I wrote, "I can't help asking, so bloody what?" Three and a half years later, I still can't see any reason why the article should be here.Spud (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Delete. Bongolian (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
4. As above, nothing to debunk, so delete. san ^t_c 06:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
5. Per all. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
6. Per @Spud's point. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. He seems to be a skeptic, so it should remain. However, that isn't to say it needs no work.Benn (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

   Given that the article only cites a single source, even that basis is questionable. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Memory hole | Result: Redirected and merged into George Orwell

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

Delete

1. 11 years old, and it's still short. It could also be merged with 1984. ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

   Yes, it should be. Although I have to point out that Nineteen Eighty-Four was itself merged into George Orwell some time ago. Spud (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

2. Yes, go for it. Bongolian (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. As I said above, merge into the Nineteen Eighty-Four section on the George Orwell page. Spud (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Still oft-used jargon for censorship today, merge with George Orwell--Spoony (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
3. Almost all of the "Orwellian" terms have been merged with the article on Orwell at this point, might as well add this one to the list. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Definitely don't delete. I think it can be serviceable to be part of both the George Orwell article as with all the other Orwellian jargon. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
5. Definitely merge. This page is basically just links to other Newspeak. Benn (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Insufferable assholes | Result: Delete

Category:Insufferable assholes (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Like Category:Batshit crazy, it's an unnecessary ad hominem that's funny approximately once. —Kazitor, ^pending 06:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
2. +1 - David Gerard (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
3. What Kazitor said, and also it's too subjective to be useful: who does a search for insufferable assholes?Ariel31459 (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Since Batshit crazy got the heave-ho, there's no point in keeping this. Spud (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
5. Yes. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
6. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 20:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
7. I agree; I don't find this to be a meaningful categorization. --Yisfidri (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

   I've deleted it. --Yisfidri (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Illicit observation | Result: Merged and redirected into Illicit process

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

Delete

1. Two sentence stub. 【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Isn't this the same as False dilemma? It's certainly similar. --Gospatric (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

   I don't think the elements in this fallacy are presented as situations, compared to false dilemma. I think in this case, the terms are assumed to be opposites, but ambiguity means they not quite opposed? That's what I'm getting. Examples for this article will surely help. Maybe someone who thinks atheism is starkly opposed to spirituality? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

2. Illicit process has a section leading to this article. We could just move those two sentences there. DuceMoosolini (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
3. I agree with DuceMoosolini. Georgie Enkoom (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolute zero | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. RW is not an encyclopedia. 【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Although it is true that RW is not an encyclopedia, science articles that support other missional articles do fall within missionality. See RationalWiki:Mission: "However, the wiki's mainspace welcomes many articles that do not relate to the primary missions of RationalWiki providing that they are factually accurate and of interest to the community at large." Bongolian (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

   We should probably include that as a fine print under our Missionality notice template. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Srbijadanas.net | Result: deleted

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

Delete

1. Short stub. DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 05:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
2. Don't really need a vote for things this short I think. Bongolian (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
3. It's pretty bad, and I don't think there are too many people here who can read Serbian well enough to improve the article. DuceMoosolini (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Batshit crazy | Result: Deleted

Category:Batshit crazy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not necessarily deletion, but this category has possible issues that could be resolved by a delete, a rename, or a subdivision. On the talk page it's been mentioned that the category is so overly broad as to obscure its meaning. It is also contained within the parent category "people" and stipulates that it only contains people, but actually contains many non-human entities like organisations. I'm bringing this up to call for a vote on whether to:

• delete the category altogether,
• rename to something like "batshit crazy people" and trim non-human entries,
• broaden the definition to remove the requirement for only "people" (with the possibility of creating subcategories for "batshit crazy people", "batshit crazy organisations" etc.), or
• leave it alone.

Delete

1. I fear that in practice, this is a dumb and bad category - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

   That's my gut feeling too, but if you support a deletion of this, you should probably address Category:Insufferable assholes and Category:Internet kooks as well. They're not useful and I do suppose that if someone really deserves to be called an asshole, you should let the article do that job, not a category. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

2. Not needed. Categories should categorise things (no shit) based on some unifying idea so that all included pages can be found together. I can't foresee anyone wanting a collection of "batshit crazy" anything; it's just not useful. As LGM says, insufferable arseholes should go too. At least internet kooks are unified by presence on the internet. —Kazitor, ^pending 23:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
3. Honestly, just let it go. It's 2008cruft, created when we had much lower standards than we do now. As it is, the category is both (a) a cheap shot that's totally unnecessary given all the other content an article is supposed to contain, and (b) also being poorly defined, rendering it unhelpful for actual categorization/navigation purposes. It'll be no loss to the wiki if it's deleted. End-of-page cheap shots aren't simply excusable for something that's supposed to have a clear-cut function like a category. Cheap shots belong in the body of the article itself, not gunking up the categories. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
4. Changing my vote - I find the above comments persuasive and am down with delete, all things considered. --Yisfidri (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
5. Per all, particularly Radioactive Misanthrope. But I can't deny I will be missing the cheapshots because it feels so cathartic for people like anti-vaxxers and creationists, even if it's petty as a category. If this proposal passes through, we should probably a bigger proposal encompassing loaded ones like Category:Enablers (debatable), Category:Shysters (debatable, but overlaps with Category:Scams?), Category:Government incompetence, Category:Smooth-talking bastards (overlaps with Shysters?), Category:Bullshit, Category:Crimes against humanity (debatable), Category:Insufferable assholes, and others. _{The talk for insufferable assholes did a cheap shot at gulls, how dare them. White-headed gulls, among the most underrated birds.}--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

   All right. This is obviously going to be deleted. When that happens, can it please be arranged for it to be removed from all the hundreds of pages that it's on with one click? Spud (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

   Even as a tech, I can't seem to find a special page nor a gadget that enables it. RationalWiki doesn't seem to have a plugin that does this installed here, unless I'm missing it. The extension certainly exists, though. BTW we did remove Category:Unremitting horror. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

   I can probably use bot powers. —Kazitor, ^pending 22:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

   Yeah, a bot can help here. You want to...? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

   Once deletion is definitively confirmed. Now, can I be bothered setting up another account to run it, or just stick with this one...? —Kazitor, ^pending 23:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

   Whatever works best for ya? I guess? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

6. Unnecessary.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 02:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. I've deleted it. @Kazitor, please go ahead and use your technical magic to remove it from all the pages. Spud (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Rename

1. Right now I'd tentatively go for renaming to "batshit crazy people" and trimming away non-human entries, leaving category description intact, as the mental state description "batshit crazy" as applied to non-human or collective entities seems a bit more complicated. --Yisfidri (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Changing my vote. --Yisfidri (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
2. After much analysis, I believe that we should rename that article (that would allow us to add groups, for example, and to avoid confusion). Also changing my vote.Georgie Enkoom (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
3. How about renaming it to "major offenders" and changing it so it has some actual standards. Benn (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

   It's a bit late, but the same problems are there. MOST people documented here are offenders in some sort, thus defeating the point of the category, and what makes someone "major" or not would also be a source of contention. I think it would create more problems than it solves. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Broaden definition

1. That would require the least amount of work from us. Let the category include organizations and whatever else is in the category already. Bring the category's official designation in line with the way it's been (mis)used for years. Spud (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

   Sounds good to me. Why not call Flat Earth batshit crazy, for instance? Wilder^Bicycle 20:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

   Deleting won't require a lot of work either. There is a way to remove the [[Category:Batshit crazy]] string in one click. This for instance, or this. I'm not sure if RationalWiki itself has that function, but I've used something similar in other MediaWiki-powered wikis. Not saying we should necessarily delete it, but deleting all pages with that string shouldn't be tedious. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

2. I believe we should broaden the definition, as several groups and ideas are clearly insane. However, we should be more careful with how we use this category in the future, so as not to diminish it's meaning. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

   But here's my question: isn't the bulk of this wiki supposed to document insanity to begin with? This makes the category pretty redundant with our wiki's mission, for the most part. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

   Also @GrammarCommie, it's "its" you itsy-it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

   @LeftyGreenMario You raise valid points, though I still find certain forms of idiocy and insanity more nonsensical than others. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

   That's subjective, right? But either way, I don't think a category is a good metric to measure how insane an article is, right? So, we're getting back to my original point: the body content of an article is supposed to already do the job of showcasing, more precisely, the varying degrees of idiocy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

3. I agree. For example, we should put people in that category if they have more than a specific number of crazy/stupid opinions, or if they are more than extremists (for example, if XXX is a racist and that's all, we don't have to put him in such category. However, if XXX is racist, xenophobic, transphobic, and all, we can put him. Same goes if his racist opinions goes to the extreme, like "Kill 'em all!"). Georgie Enkoom (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Leave it alone

1. Leave Batshit ALONE! 09:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)^{— that was by Readymade, by the way}

Goat

• Deleting it would require community consensus. But can't this category be a subcategory of both people and organizations? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• previous related arguments: Forum:Rethinking "Snarky point of view" and RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Bullshit. Wilder^Bicycle 11:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  Also RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive284#Vote —Kazitor, ^pending 23:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• I like the broaden definition option but I feel like we need more specifics on setting points, and that I find to be quite difficult. One person's "insane" is different from anothers. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 02:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Father Divine | Result: Redirected to here and contents reduced to a footnote

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

Delete

1. Not substantial enough. DiamondDisc1(talk) 02:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

   So add stuff. Boredatwork (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

   That's not a good response to a stubby article. It's not the nominator's responsibility to expand the article. The article should've been substantial to begin with. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

   "We should delete this because I can't be arsed expanding it" isn't a good direction. Deletion of stubs should only be when they cannot be meaningfully expanded. Wilder^Bicycle 18:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

   People shouldn't be creating stubs to merely fill in red links in the first place. Stubs on their own should be substantial enough and then they can be expanded. It's not any editor's responsibility to expand extremely short stubs, even if they call for an extremely short article to be deleted. It's not a right approach to wiki editing to create extremely short articles and expect other editors to expand. There's always another opportunity for this article to be expanded to be a standalone, but as it currently stands, it should not be a standalone, regardless of its potential to be expanded. It needs to pass the "substantial enough" test first. Also, short articles aren't necessarily stubs and aren't necessarily bad either. As long as they are complete, they shouldn't get a stub template. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

   It was created in 2011, long before the War On Stubs. So you're criticising someone who did a thing that was ok seven years ago but not now. Be reasonable. Wilder^Bicycle 08:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

   I don't know how or why you came to that conclusion. Policies and attitudes on quality control change over time. If an article back then doesn't adhere to today's standards, something should be done, usually shape up or delete/merge. That's not being mean, that's just quality control. I don't appreciate the off-handed "be reasonable" remark when I believe I have adequately explained my position; I am open for a chance for this subject in the future to get its own article as long as someone expands it to be much more useful to readers than what it is at the time of this deletion proposal. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Cult leader who inspired Jim Jones? Looks pretty keepy. Boredatwork (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

   Would it be a bad idea to just create a subsection on Father Divine and have the article redirect to Jim Jones? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

2. Missional, expandable. Wilder^Bicycle 09:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
3. Keep. There's plenty of material to expand his article with. DuceMoosolini (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with Jim Jones. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
2. There's a pretty substantial article on this guy at the other wiki. It's notable that he influenced Jim Jones. Rather than keeping a stub, however, I'd recommend merging this into the Jones article and putting an entry in the to do list for future work. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
3. The question with stubs is whether or not they will save work and stimulate a more expanded article. Otherwise, they waste the time of users following a link to a stub to gain more information. At this point an expanded reference in the Jones article would be much more convenient for the user. The only substantial content in the article at present is the reference to Jones. A deletion request is not a criticism of the one who created the article, who may have had an intention to expand, or just hated red-links. Red links actually stimulate article creation, whereas a brief stub may actually suppress it, by comparison. Some random Smith (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
4. Deletion of stubs should happen if they are extremely short and convey little useful, interesting information. They should be merged if the content can be easily incorporated into another article. Stubs in if themselves aren't a problem. Extremely short articles with little effort poured in by the editors (little effort is little effort regardless when the page is made), with only a shred of information, are the problem. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I have turned the page into a redirect to Jim Jones#Beginnings of the People's Temple and put the pages former contents into a footnote. if anybody would like to try to create a page about him again in the future, I think that would be fine. Spud (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

PI news | Result: Merged into this bit of a websites page

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

Delete

1. Small, no sources Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

   Requested by @DiamondDisc1. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

2. Delete, and move the content to the Internet Webshites page. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
3. Delete. Bongolian (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
4. -💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Move to the relevant part of RationalWiki:Webshites. Wilder^Bicycle 19:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
2. I support the above suggestion to move this article to a webshites mention. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
3. A mention on the webshites page is all it needs. Spud (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
4. Per these. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Health at every size | Result: Keep

Health at every size (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This article is reads like it was cut-and-pasted from r/FatPeopleHate. It‘s not a nuanced and factual examination of a complex topic. It’s a one-sided, hateful rant that treats it as if obesity is solely a matter of poor diet and lack of exercise, completely discounting all the scientific evidence that suggests genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors play a role. It dismisses fat-shaming and bullying, because, you know, doctors are just telling the cold, hard truth about obesity and evidently they’re not capable of perpetuating negative stereotypes and biases. There are definitely some wootastic ideas perpetuated by certain fat-acceptance activists. But those would probably be better integrated into an article about weight-related woo that could discuss the topic in greater depth and lay out the full range of evidence. This article isn’t salvageable in its current form. Moon Bomb (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. The article could do with a bit of polish and more sources, that being said it is by no means immaterial to RW's mission. ^{— Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs}
2. Seems alright to me. —Kazitor, ^pending 01:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
3. See talk page (revision if section gets archived in the future.) tl;dr: article should be somewhat rewritten and expanded instead, and Moon Bomb's argument for deleting the article is more of a rant than constructive criticism. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
4. OP has some weird agenda that makes me cringe. ^{— Unsigned, by: Ibrahim_Moizoos / talk / contribs} 22:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
5. HAES is definitely a missional subject, but I agree the article needs cleaning up, perhaps with the aspects mentioned by Moon Bomb (e.g. genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors, and the fat-shaming stuff) given their own section? On the other hand, I note that the more "neutral" Wikipedia article on this topic also devotes quite a lot of space to scientific and academic criticism of the theory (for what that's worth here). --Yisfidri (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

   I looked at the Wikipedia article. I'm more inclined to believe them than a random ranter. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Goat

I think this should've started as a talk page discussion. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yah, move it to the talk page. @Moon Bomb: propose revisions to the article on the talk page or start a new one in your sandbox, even. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple people have raised issues on the article talk page since 2015. Little to nothing has been do to resolve them. It doesn’t seem anyone is up for the job of trying to rework this article into something worthy of this site. I don’t think it is possible to salvage this “article.” So suggesting this should be taken to the talk age, where so far commentors who’ve spoken up have seemingly either been dismissed or ignored, honestly seems like an attempt to sweep this problem under the carpet. Moon Bomb (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this sounds like a hate piece to me. At worst, the article should be rewritten. But since you say it's like r/FatPeopleHate, can you give me examples from what stuff r/FatPeopleHate have actually said? Might be useful for me to evaluate your claim. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

r/FatPeopleHate got banned by Reddit. This article is full of the kind of fat-shaming garbage that subreddit was infamous for, although the language is cleaner and superfically more reasonable, obviously. Not to mention it’s completely one-sided and scientifically inaccurate, in that it completely discounts the extensive evidence of genetic and enviromental factors influencing weight. It’s one user’s gross rant that overweight people just need to stop eating. This user seemed single-mindedly focused on inserting this idea in articles, apparently to push the old “feminism makes women unnatractive and fat” line. I’m surprised this 4chan-esque trolling has been allowed to fester here for three years. Moon Bomb (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess I can extract some statements from the article, but for your criticism to be useful, you need to be specific and provide examples to bolster your claims. I'll probably talk about this more in the talk page for the article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, can you be more condescending and dismissive? I’ve already explained what’s wrong with this article. Other people have been explaining what is wrong with the article for three years. It’s insulting, hateful, and scientifically inaccurate, right from the first sentence. It’s a vile rant from a 4chan/Reddit-type troll with apparent misogynist tendencies. Read the article. Look over MortgageBalls’ user history. It’s right there, plain as day. If MortgageBalls had come here to spew “human biodiversity” nonsense, and had written an article all about how studies show certain races do more poorly on IQ tests, I’m pretty sure everyone would see it for the thinly-veiled racist crap it was. But I guess fatphobia is baked so deep into our society that even people who claim to be “woke” give it a pass. Fat people are fair game, amiright? Shaming them isn’t wrong, it’s just promoting “healthy lifestyles.” Moon Bomb (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Moon Bomb You dislike the article, therefor the entire thing must go? You do realize that's the exact same logic almost every half-baked crank that comes through here uses right? If you wish to participate in constructive dialog, then list examples!! If you dislike being compared to the likes of Metapedia then do not use their debate tactics. Finally we never claimed to be "Woke" whatever that halfassed soundbite is supposed to mean, we claim to be (and are for the most part) rational. That means laying out our arguments and debating them like adults, rather than whining like children. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is the product of a hateful troll. Go look at MortgageBalls’ history. I’m guessing you wouldn’t advocate debating and trying to find value in the “contributions” of someone spewing racism disguised as science (“human biodiversity”). You’d probably just delete their nonsense on sight, no need for debate. So why are you all tripping over yourselves to give the benefit of the doubt to someone spewing fat-shaming and misogyny disguised as science? Why are you legitimizing a hateful troll and giving them a platform to spew their garbage? Moon Bomb (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at your claims, the current article, the Wikipedia article, and one source the Wikipedia article provides. I don't think your claim measures up. And your comments are not "explanation". They're just labeling an article as "hateful", which, again, isn't useful at all. You still fail to provide me specific passages that actually fat-shame people. I've looked at the talk page too. These comments to me, point to rewrite, not delete. Finally, I have no idea where you got "misogynist" from; that's even a more frivolous claim than the "it's a vile piece of work from r/FatPeopleHate". I don't even know where any implications of misogyny even begin. And so what about MortgageBalls's user history? I even checked the user contributions, haven't seen anything blatantly. But this is a red herring. It has no bearing on the quality of the article (and it doesn't seem to relate?), and you seem to use it as a springboard to then call it now racist??? You're not appearing any less ranty, you know??? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Look at the archives of the talk page. I’m not the first poster to compare this article to the kind of vile hatred that was posted on r/FatPeopleHate. I’m not the first to speculate MortageBalls is a r/FatPeopleHate troll. In fact someone commented in the archives that this article was created only a couple of weeks after r/FatPeopleHate was banned, so it seems someone may have been looking for a new outlet to spew the kind of hate they did there. People have been sounding the alarm about this article for three years. I don’t know how many more times people have to speak up before someone listens. I don’t know how many more words need to be written to convince you.

The edit I linked above betrays the misogyny. MortgageBalls was obviously trying to push a “feminists are fat and ugly” line in a way they thought was subtle enough to get away with. And I’m not suggesting there was a racist element to their contributions. I said you wouldn’t tolerate it if they *had* come here posting racist ideas disguised as science, like “human biodiveristy.” So why should you tolerate fat-shaming trolling disguised as science? Moon Bomb (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If this isn't such a massive reach (including the feminism bit), this is a red herring.

Also if you're talking about this, I don't see how that two-year-old discussion is relevant to the quality of the article. Hidingaardvark, ChrisB, and Cykosys are not arguing in good form through baseless assumptions ("hidden agenda") and "bets". You're just like those people. And just because you're not the first to call it that doesn't mean anything. A ton of our articles, even on the clear-cut stuff like global warming and homeopathy, have been described as "hateful" and "rants" multiple times in the past before. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple posters have raised similar concerns since 2015. They have explained what is wrong with the article and why it bears the marks of FPH. You know what’s bad form and propogating “baseless assumptions?” Trying to handwave away multiple warnings and concerns from multiple people. Handwaving away concerns and questioning the motivations of the ones raise them doesn’t invalidate said concerns or make the underlying problem go away. So I’m left to infer either an unwillingness to seriously interrogate the article’s content or a tacit agreement with its sentiments. Moon Bomb (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Look, I took several hours looking at your arguments, reading Wikipedia's article, reading this article, checking out past archives, looking through MortgageBalls's edit history, and examining the merits of your claims, and wrote a substantial comment on the talk page examining the article itself, and you have the gall to think I'm just "handwaving" or not "seriously interrogating the article's content". I'm done with you. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Anatoly Karlin | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. Article was only created since Karlin attacked the creator of the Emil Kirkegaard's RationalWiki article on UNZ Review, so it was basically a retaliation, e.g. see here. Karlin is totally non-noticeable and is a random white nationalist/'race realist'/human biodiversity crank. There are of course other HBD pseudo-scientists covered by RationalWiki, but Karlin (if you look at his UNZ Review posts) is a lowbrow 'shit poster' who posts racism and isn't more noticeable like Hbdchick or Steve Sailer. I don't think he deserves an article; as also mentioned the article was only created as a retaliation. Agent47 (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2018

So he doesn't like his article, a lot of cranks don't like their articles and claim all sorts of "nefarious" reasons for said dislike. Why should what he thinks matter? If the article is well sourced then his opinion is irrelevant. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying the article was written as part of a grudge and feud, so should be deleted. Karlin is an attack-dog for Emil Kirkegaard and Kirkegaard got him to write an article on Unz Review attacking the person who wrote his RationalWiki article. That person then retaliated by creating the Karlin article on RationalWiki.Agent47 (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The only evidence you cited for the claim that this article is a hatchet job is a UNZ post by the subject. What you fail to understand is that the subject may have ulterior motives for dismissing the article. Again, what matters is the quality of the article in question, not what the subject thinks about it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm the article creator. I admit my mistakes. I got attacked/trolled by posters on UNZ Review, over Emil Kirkegaard's RationalWiki article; I should have ignored them. Prior to article creation I contacted Karlin on Twitter to refute the nonsense he was posting about me on UNZ; he then started trolling me on Twitter. So I retaliated by creating the Karlin article, but that didn't help the situation. I don't think the article is relevant or needed.Agent47 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't your first time trying to delete an article based on alleged harassment by the subjects or their colleagues. You seem to have a pattern of trying to put the genie back in the bottle, @Agent47. Unlike Wikipedia, lack of notability is not a strong reason to remove an article on RW. If the article is completely inaccurate or unsubstantiated, then that's a good reason to delete it. If there are just a few things wrong or unsubstantiated then we can delete or correct those parts. Bongolian (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep, there isn't any real reason to delete this article at present. ^{— Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs}
2. Keep, despite the smarmy events claimed in its history. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
3. Keep. Bongolian (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
4. Keep. As the "subject", I get a vote, right? The world must be made aware of my insane levels of hate. Akarlin (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
5. Keep. DuceMoosolini (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinko commie | Result: Merged into Communism

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

Delete

1. Put a brief mention in Communism and delete. 💠💿☝️ (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
2. If we were RationalDictionary, the page would be worth keeping. But we aren't and it isn't. Spud (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
3. Might warrant a mention in Communism. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with Communism. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
2. Above reason.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 20:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
3. Form glorious union with Communism, comrades! Wilder^Bicycle 20:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Goat

On a related note, do we honestly need libtard as a standalone article? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

World Slovene Congress | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. One sentence stub. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
2. Delete, doesn't even need a discussion here. Bongolian (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Mouflon | Result: Sacrificed to Goat

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

Delete

1. Too short, perhaps merge with sheep. ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

   It's not too short, it's too long. There's no reason for this to be on the wiki. Wilder^Bicycle 11:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

2. This page is good for nothing apart from offering up to our Lord as a burnt offering. Spud (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
3. Not much here, despite its resemblance to a goat. Boredatwork (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
4. This is missional..... how? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
5. Pwn it. —Kazitor, ^pending 00:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Goat

• In what way is this missional? Am I missing something? It's not even a goat. --Gospatric (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• it is, indeed, Not goat. Wilder^Bicycle 11:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Agitprop | Result: Merged into Propaganda

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

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with propaganda, agitprop is a kind of it.-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
2. Yes. Bongolian (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
3. I fail to understand why this is a separate article rather than a subsection of propaganda. Merge the two and rectify this mistake!!! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
4. Yeah. Turn it into a paragraph on the propaganda page. Spud (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
5. Merge with propaganda. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Bonesandbehaviours | Result: merged into Henry Stevens

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

Delete

1. A deleted forum (from 4 years ago) that virtually no one knows about and that only had less than 10 users. All that remains of the forum is a single archive.is screenshot. The admin of the forum himself has his own article: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Henry_Stevens Agent47 (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
2. Most of the content in the page can be stripped, and it should have only a very short mention in the Henry Stevens article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
3. Only the stuff pertaining to The Races of Europe seems particularly relevant and unique vis-a-vis the contents of the Henry Stevens article, so I agree with LeftyGreenMario that this is more of a nuke than a chop job. Leave a redirect, though, to forestall a resurrection of this page. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Its been a week, about time to delete the article now?Agent47 (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Agent47 More votes are for merge/redirect. You should move relevant content to the appropriate article and change this article to a redirect to that article, maybe with an anchor to the subsection. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario 🐐 Done. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge into Henry Stevens. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
2. Above reason.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 22:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
3. Merge ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
4. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 23:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
5. Merge, but what does HBD mean? It just unhelpfully links to racialism. —Kazitor, ^pending 01:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

   @Kazitor Human biodiversity (e.g. Hbdchick); as it says in the second paragraph in racialism: ”Very few racialists call themselves "racialist". Their preferred labels include [...] human biodiversity or HBD (post–2010).” ScepticWombat (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

   Alright, thanks. Surely that means the article shouldn't even use that term (at least not without sarcasm quotes)? —Kazitor, ^pending 06:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

   I’m not sure sarcasm quotes are necessary as the term is “ingroup lingo”/jargon, not typically used by others. Similarly, we don’t usually put sarcasm quotes around the tonnes of ”ingroup lingo”/jargon used in the manosphere. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Kraut and Tea | Result: Deleted

Kraut and Tea (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This nobody is no longer on YT, article is stubby and bleh. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
2. Was just another youtuber, is just another ex-youtuber. Wilder^Bicycle 09:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
3. Who cares? --Dan Smith (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• So, after 15 days, it's 3 votes for delete and 1 vote for keep with a lot of discussion but nobody having a change of mind. It goes. Spud (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. His content is still there and this person has a decent amount of subscribers. Just because he doesn't make new content doesn't mean we should delete an article about him. There are also plentiful resources critiquing his content in the talk page, so the potential for some expansion is there. Being a minor Youtuber hasn't stopped us from articles like Black Pigeon Speaks or Emil O. W. Kirkegaard. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

   While I’m not sure we should have articles on them either, at least their articles contain some critical responses to these YouTubers, not to mention that they are still active. By contrast, the Kraut and Tea article is stubby and its contents are not very informative, containing mainly “Boo! We don’t like you!”-type rhetoric, brief quotes and little commentary/debunking. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

   While I know notability isn't a requirement, I don't think we shall make an article on every random YouTube wanker and tosspot and keep only those who make a splash. I believe he falls under the random wanker and/or tosspot. Dan Smith (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

   I think it has been mentioned before, but we should really make a criterion on which Youtuber to cover or not. I suppose a minimum subscriber amount? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

   Heh, sounds like you’re channeling Fuzzy, @LeftyGreenMario. Joking aside, you do have a point. Do you have any ideas/suggestions? My only concern would be whether such formal criteria would lead to excessive wikilawyering from either the cranks, their fans or edit warriors trying to get stuff removed. Nevertheless, I do think that at the very least some guidelines on when we care about bloggers, YouTubers and the like would be nice. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

   I myself don't know. I don't have a good clue of what "notable" is in Youtube. If one person's video maybe has more than 100K views, then maybe it's notable? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Goat

Someone deleting all their stuff doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't have an article, does it? —Kazitor, ^pending 01:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you’re right about that, but that’s not the main reason I suggested nuking the article. Those were the combination of its poor content and the “nobody factor”, while the deletion of the channel was of secondary concern. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

John Fuerst | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. Non-notable white nationalist. Fuerst has published a few pseudoscience articles in the bogus OpenPsych pseudojournals, but no attention is paid to his work by scientists. I don't think he needs an article, and his few junk articles can just be mentioned briefly on the separate OpenPsych journal. Agent47 (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. The article is substantial and he's contributed a bit in the field with his published crap and all. He also makes legal threats to critics who merely quote the stuff he says, which isn't something, I think, we should ignore. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

   Emil Kirkegaard is relevant, Fuerst far less so. Kirkegaard attended the London Conference on Intelligence, but Fuerst never did etc. Fuerst is just a bedroom blogger. I know Fuerst also complained about his article and posted phony legal threats, but that was several months back and he hasn't done anything bad since. This is unlike Kirkegaard who is still harassing the editors who made his article; Fuerst has never done this and is more respectable. Agent47 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

   I think Fuerst is still relevant enough, and I don't see the issue of having an article on him as long he gets enough attention and the article is comprehensive on him? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

2. Non-notability is not necessarily a valid rationale to delete an article on RW. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
3. Seriously?—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 23:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
4. We don't do notability here (although we tend to weed out articles on minor youtubers), we do missionality. Fuerst is easily missional, and has had work cited by Liberty University, according to Google Scholar. Wilder^Bicycle 10:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
5. Fuerst is clearly on mission, keep. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
6. Keep: missional. Bongolian (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Zarbee’s Naturals | Result: Merged and redirected to RationalWiki:Webshites/Pseudoscience#Alternative medicine

Zarbee’s Naturals (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Needs way, way more depth, also only substantial paragraph is basically a copy paste from the "Our Story" part of a referenced website. DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 04:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
2. Could be a good article but as it stands is a stub that is nowhere near ready for mainspace, delete and/or move to the original user's sandbox. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
3. Delete, but give @Kingsnake, who created the page, a chance to comment on expanding it. Bongolian (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
4. Delete, it isn't ready for the mainspace, we need some more content to have it on the mainspace. Felicia777 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
5. Go ahead. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. The essence of this article could be easily moved over to Pseudoscience webshites. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
2. Yeah, why not. Why I haven't thought of that, well, let's say it involved a lot of Weeglee Candy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
3. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 22:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
4. I agree with Cosmik.リムルテンペスト 18:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Fairies | Result: Moved to funspace without leaving a redirect

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

Delete

1. Not really about fairies. Is mostly a comparison to theistic/creationist arguments for the existence of God. Little information is given on traditional folklore, the evolution of their perception, and debunking claims of existence. Would be open to moving to funspace, or a rewrite by Smerdis or any person with knowledge of folklore. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the article to funspace without leaving a redirect. If anybody would like to start a new and informative article about fairies, that would be great. But there really wasn't anything salvageable on the page that we had. Spud (talk)

Goat

• I pretty much agree with everything RoninMacbeth said above. And I'm delighted that we've moved on from just taking the piss out of Christians to actually wanting to provide some information about the topic that a page is nominally about. Improving the page is definitely a job for Smerdis of Tion and most of what's on the current page could be moved to funspace. So, yeah, what Ronin said but don't delete just yet.Spud (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• It could be heavily edited (and maybe split into fun and serious), but amid the total lies there is some valid information about fairies, particularly in the section "Modern and historical sightings of fairy-like creatures". The Cottingley Fairies and such. There's also a lot which seems to be mocking real things but is just made up crap (Rodney Herbert O'Gould). I don't see any reason to keep the "Evidence for fairies" section though. --Gospatric (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ben Steigmann: | Result:Delete

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

Delete

1. I have just been going over this article. The sourcing is not very good, i.e. screenshots to amazon book reviews that have been deleted, email conversations on PDF documents and Facebook posts. Ben says he no longer supports holocaust denial or is involved with racism. He appears to be non-notable. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
2. I am Ben Steigmann and I no longer wish to be associated with this stuff.69.181.4.251 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

   Bullshit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

3. Steigmann only got added because of Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax; you could just mention the former in a small section on the latter's article. ODS (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

   it would be better for the article to stay then rather than that because it provides better context.69.181.4.251 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

4. FWIW, this article was created as a piece of revenge against Abd, about someone mostly withdrawn and not at all well-known for his views. The most significant action involving him was being impersonated on Wikipedia, confirmed by WMF checkusers, leading to a massive avalanche of socking against Abd's documenting the mess, purely to protect the wikis, leading to yatta yatta yatta. Of course it should be deleted as off-mission. By the way, the IP posting here as Steigmann is plausible from his known location. These things can cause harm, and among those asking for deletion are one or more likely the continuation of the users who created it. Nice of them. Many users creating articles involving certain special interests edit for a relatively short time and then disappear and then others appear to obsessively edit the same article. It's one of the clues about WIGO. --159.89.200.184 (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

   I am not going to bother removing the above IP as he keeps using loads of proxies, but the above is Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax. He has been blocked on Rationalwiki so I am not sure if his vote counts or not, via block evasion rules etc. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

   I have just been going over this article again. If we strip off the unreliable Facebook content that has been deleted, the postimg "screenshots" taken from amazon reviews and other dubious sources, the only reliable sources left is Steigmann's bans on Wikipedia and Wikiversity. I don't believe it constitutes enough for an RW entry. Many people have been banned on Wikipedia, doesn't mean they all need RW articles. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

5. Most of the sources on the article have been deleted. His anti-feminist rant has been removed. 178.73.210.200 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
6. -D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Goat

Meh, the article as a whole needs to be cleaned up, but non-notability is not by itself criteria for deletion. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Bob Casey, Jr. | Result: After a month, it was 2 deletes and 1 goat. Deleted

Bob Casey, Jr. (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Very old stub that has nothing applicable to RationalWiki's mission. Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
2. Doesn't seem like you can add much to it.Vorarchivist (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. This guy is a case study on how blanket voting for Democratic may not align best with your political stances. I believe he should be a sidenote in maybe Democratic Party#Internal factions. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

No Answers in Genesis | Result: Merged into Answers in Genesis

No Answers in Genesis (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Delete or mention it in the Answers in Genesis article. DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 06:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
2. Pointless stub. Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with Answers in Genesis. Wilder^Bicycle 08:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
2. Per @Readymade ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
3. That Answers in Genesis has responded to that site is noteworthy enough for a mention. Merge to Answers in Genesis article, but if it has enough content for a standalone, then go for it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
4. Missional enough for a mention, perhaps not enough for its own article. Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The Man in the High Castle | Result: No real consensus after a month, it stays for now

The Man in the High Castle (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not missional CowHouse (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Per CowHouse. Ⲥⲡⲣⲓⲅⲅⲓⲛⲁ (ⲧⲁⲗⲕ) (ⲕⲟⲛⲧⲣⲓⲃⲩⲧⲓⲟⲛⲥ) @ 13:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
3. As it stands, the article doesn't relate to our mission at all. I suppose that some real life Nazis enjoy the novel and TV series. But so do a lot of other people. As, I've said before, not every work of fiction with Nazis in it should have an article here. As I;ve also said before, the article' is a nice little introduction to the novel and TV series for people unfamiliar with them. But this is not Nice Little Introductions Wiki. Spud (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Could work if it documented any controversies surrounding the show/books, but it doesn't. Delete. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

   Or perhaps write some in? "There are none in the article" doesn't mean "there are none at all." Boredatwork (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Well, given how we have an article on Wolfenstein another piece of fiction that relates to the Nazis and we still keep it,, I think we should keep The Man in the High Castle because of it's significance and relating to WW2.^{— Unsigned, by: 167.88.229.132 / talk / contribs}

   I disagree, the only thing missional about the book that I could see was some rampant American Exceptionalism in the premise. Comrade GC (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

   its true theres not much on mission about wolfenstein. ive no problem if tnat were AFD as well. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

   Wolfenstein recently had the alt-right flipping out on its existence and Trump supporters were deeply offended by the "Make America Nazi-Free Again" slogan. Unlike The Man in the High Castle, it had some public backlash. But again, Super Mario Odyssey had a small bout of drama of "cultural appropriation" when Mario in a sombrero used to be in the front of the box and was moved to the back, being replaced by Mario in an inner-tube. And then, I think there was a small controversy when Tomodachi Life didn't allow same-sex character marriage. Not sure if these reach the backlash of Wolfenstein, but that kind of uncertainty alone brings the question, should we document those controversies or are they Internet drama? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

   the wolfenstein backlash, such as it was, merits one line in a sea of trivia AMassiveGay (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

   Like on the other wiki, "other stuff exists" shouldn't be a compelling reason to keep a page. Likewise, "we shouldn't have an article about X because we don't have an article about Y" shouldn't be a compelling reason to delete a page either. Spud (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

2. Nazis and their representation in the media are on-topic. The article isn't particularly exciting and could do a better job of relating it to real-world contemporary concerns, and it isn't written in that zany RW style which all the site's visitors love so much, but it's worth seeing if someone can improve it. --Gospatric (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

   Oops, not sure why the numbering restarted at 1. Does it matter? --Gospatric (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

   Fixed it. CowHouse (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

3. Probably missional, needs more on odd claims about it. Try this, for instance. Boredatwork (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

I haven’t seen this show so I don’t know enough but isn’t this a textbook case of “4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.“? Christopher (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan | Result: One keep, one delete, two goats. It stays.

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

Delete

1. Not really that missional. 💠💿☝️ (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. If someone can expand on the "advanced city under the lake" stuff. There could also be more on how it has struggled to move away from one-party dictatorship into something more open. However, there's a thing not in the article that makes it a keeper: giant humanoids! Wilder^Bicycle 21:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

• I think that the article could use some expansion talking about the types of corruption in the country here and there, as well as its history of being taken advantage of from other countries. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 01:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Deleting this would deal with the critical vowel surplus rationalwiki has been suffering from. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

NotPoliticallyCorrect | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. According to the owner of the blog, and someone else the article was written by Michael Coombs impersonating an ANTIFA (ANTIFAGuy); also user "RaceRealist88" was an impersonation of notpoliticallycorrect, likely also Mike. Despite being a neo-Nazi himself, Mike has spats with other Nazis/white nationalists, then he uses this wiki to attack them while pretending to be ANTIFA.EvilGremlin (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

   None of that makes a compelling case to delete the article. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

   Non-notability? It's a random white nationalist/racialist whose only internet presence is a blog and Twitter profile. The article creator only made the article because he had a quarrel or minor dispute with him. Btw, Mike created a RationalWiki article on me, but it was quickly deleted. Pretty much anyone who debates Michael Coombs online he then creates articles on either here, Encylopedia Dramatica or his Nazi-wiki Rightpedia.EvilGremlin (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

   A lot of articles on people we make here are "random white nationalist/racialists". Where are the guidelines that decide who is "notable" or not? in this category, how many names do you recognize? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 20:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

   The article doesn't seem bad to me, so it doesn't really matter whether or not Mikemikev wrote it. Spriggina (razgovor) (doprinosi) @ 21:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. It's missional and we have plenty of articles about people who aren't notable here. Spriggina (razgovor) (doprinosi) @ 23:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

   Wait, do you want it deleted or not? —Kazitor, ^pending 05:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

   @Kazitor Check the deletion log. FuzzyCatPotato deleted the page, then Spriggina restored it and opened an AfD. CowHouse (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

2. Definitely keep. It's missional and has enough content to stand on. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 20:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
3. It doesn't matter who created it. This page has subsequently been edited by some of our most trusted editors and looks to me like one of our better articles on the alt-right. Spud (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
4. I'll add my vote to the keep camp. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
5. Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. Why does the result say "not notable"? CowHouse (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

   @CowHouse Maybe someone misread "result" as "reason"? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Gold | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. Article does not contain missional information, though this could change. 💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Articles that are not missional per se but are supportive of RW's mission, e.g. science-related articles such as this, are acceptable to keep. We could actually use more articles on other elements. Bongolian (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
2. It needs some cleanup but is certainly worth keeping. Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Needs more alchemy. Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 07:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
4. What they said. Nerd (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
5. Reads like a rather dull Wikipedia page, but with a little snark and a touch of goat (not to mention mentioning some of the nuttier woo attached to gold) it could go far. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. If this doesn't get seriously improved, just merge and redirect to Gold standard (economics). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

Pretty pointless as it stands, but could easily be expanded with its use in, eg, economics woo, any health woo that might be out there, and Erich von Daniken's Gold of the Gods, probably his worst book. I stripped out the trivia to Fun:Gold. If we're going to keep this as a "science background" article (a part of RW I hate because "hey it's a science background article" is usually an excuse for people to write irrelevant stuff they happen to be interested in), let's make a proper job of it. Wilder^Bicycle 22:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

On a side note: that felidae article needs more of a "cats are ecologically destructive demons that need to be exorcised from this society" slant too. P.S. I don't like dogs either. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Do we have information on the whole historical U.S. "gold versus silver" politics? If so, maybe we can sneak a section or so in this article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

exactly, there's the whole economic side that the article doesn't go into. goldbugs, for instance. And there's colloidal gold to cure alcoholism, apparently. BabyLuigi's suggestion of the Dumpster Dive is sounding like a good idea. Wilder^Bicycle 15:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we could add this to the dumpster instead. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 20:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The Last Superstition | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. 2 sentence stub and has not been expanded.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 06:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
2. It's taken six years of editing to produce this shitty 2 sentence stub!?! Nuke it! Spud (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
3. Shit Christopher (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
4. 24 edits, and it's still shit.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 19:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. Does somebody else mind archiving this? Currently editing on phone. Christopher (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

   Done it Christopher (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

LSD | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. No missional content in this article. At all. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 06:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. It seems fairly well-researched and written, I don't really see there being any use in deleting. As far as I'm concerned, the more content, just so long as it's of good quality, the better.^{— Unsigned, by: Lord Zedd / talk / contribs}

   Then perhaps it should be moved to the fun space then?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 05:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

2. And expand on various forms of opposition. At the moment it seems o be an encyclopedia entry, and I feel RW works best when it's supporting one side of an argument. (yes I know presenting plain facts can do that, but it's like watching grey paint dry) Boredatwork (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

   That's just an incentive to edit, I don't see a need to outright delete it. That just seems counterproductive. Again, regardless of how the information is presented, more is better. If it doesn't fit the mold of the site, than improve it rather than tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Lord Zedd (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

   Then we can add it to the todo list. The article as it stands is not missional. In order to make it missional, all the content would have to be removed. At that point, what's the point in keeping the article at all?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 05:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Crack cocaine | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. The article's text is not missional. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 06:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. The topic is missional, given the scare stories about it. What's missing is the closet (and sometimes open) racism inherent in these claims. Again, as with the LSD entry elsewhere on this page, the article itself is dull as distilled water - useful, plain but so booooooooring. Boredatwork (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Per @Boredatwork. Comrade GC (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
3. The "poor person's drug" section is enough for it to be missional. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Rationalists of East Tennessee | Result: Deleted

Rationalists of East Tennessee (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Literal copy paste from their website. ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 06:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
2. Shame on the person who plagiarised this. This doesn't need an afd. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 07:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Fun:Stilton cheese | Result: Most content removed; turned into redirect

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

Delete

1. See talk page comment. This article is just a massive rant against Stilton cheese and just unfunny and whiny comparisons and exaggerations (wah wah people who like this has no taste and eating should be considered a crime against humanity; give me a break). P.S. I'm inclined to believe whoever wrote this has limited palette too, but assumptions assumptions. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
2. There's missional stuff to be said about cheese and other decomposing/rotten/fermented food matter, but this page is both unfunny and incorrect. --Gospatric (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Not funny. —Kazitor, ^pending 07:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep

I am under the impression that we do not have standards for funspace articles and they need not pertain to RW's mission, so I think this is fine, though obviously not top-notch RW content. It's not like the rest of funspace is much better anyway. Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 22:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

We deleted stupid crap before though? See RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Fun:Guam, RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Fun:Stealth cactus, RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Fun:Justin Bieber, RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Fun:Public school. On the other hand, we have kept historical community-related fun; this article started as a redirect to User:SusanG. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware of that. In that case, I suppose I'll sit out on this vote. Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 23:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

1. It's harmless enough. Spud (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with Pollution Fun:Cheese. Wilder^Bicycle 18:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. I think the only real criterion for keeping in the Fun space is "Is it funny?", which is rather subjective. Being at least vaguely missional helps. It could be merged into into Fun:Cheese though. Bongolian (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
2. With a rewrite and part of a section of the Fun:Cheese article, I could see it working. But as it stands now, yeah, it's painfully unfunny. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 19:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Are contributors 'cheesed off' with the article? Anna Livia (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
4. What do you call a film about a cheese shop in Cambridgeshire? Brie Fen Counter. I'll get me coat. Wilder^Bicycle 22:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Eleonóra Dubiczki | Result: Delete

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

Delete

1. This entire article seems to be contingent upon an Encyclopedia Dramatica doxing of the subject of this page. ED is inherently unreliable. Bongolian (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
2. If the entire article relies on some dubious stuff from the vile ED, then it has to be deleted. Spud (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
3. If it's solely ED stuff, delete and start afresh with non-ED sources. Wilder^Bicycle 09:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Per Bongolian. CowHouse (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
5. I've been pretty wary of this article given the personal nature of a lot of content that has been put in it. I didn't realize it was from ED, otherwise I would've started this AfD way sooner. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 04:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

   I think we can delete it at this point. The article creator retired from RW, so is not likely to rise in its defense. Bongolian (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

   Actually, I'm 99.99% sure they're still here, just under a different username. They keep switching accounts. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 14:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

   I'm almost certain that they're still here under at least two accounts, though thus far they haven't caused any obvious problems. Comrade GC (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep

• I understand the article was deleted, but there's now better sources including a Wikipedia sockpuppet investigation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Eleon%C3%B3ra_Dubiczki/Archive

Therefore, arguably the page can be restored. It was only deleted since Encylopedia dramatica isn't a reliable source.ODS (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not compelling evidence, especially considering the suspiciously unsubtle account names such as "Eleonora Rightpedia owner". @Merkel has informed me that all of these Wikipedia accounts were created after the Dubiczki page was deleted on January 30. I checked and all the accounts were created in February 2018. Four of the five accounts were created in quick succession (between 00:29 and 00:43 on February 21). I don't know if they are impersonations but, since that could be done very easily, I don't find your evidence persuasive. CowHouse (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Dude, Merkel is either Eleonóra Dubiczki herself, or the other admin from Rightpedia, A Wyatt Man. They aren't a reliable source for anything, but Nazi clowns. And their hypocrisy is through the roof - both Dubiczki/A Wyatt Man dox, smear and harass RationalWiki editors on their wiki, yet they come here and moan if their real names are merely mentioned.ODS (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League, Hope not Hate, Searchlight are well aware of Rightpedia and Eleonóra Dubiczki's online extremist activities. At least two of these organizations have talked about a future expose on Eleonora and Rightpedia, but they are gathering more data about this so may take some time. You will have to wait until this happens and news coverage appears, then there will be more reliable sources. For now the article should stay down or as I suggested redirect to the Rightpedia article. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The page could be restored but only if there is sufficient information on her to make the page missional without relying on sketchy sources for her alleged aliases. As @CowHouse pointed out, the Wikipedia accounts are not reliable sources. Bongolian (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If you don't mind being really red-pilled, ODS and "Debunking spiritualism" are the same person who has used all these multiple socks in the past. So are all the proxy IPs. The "ODS" is a name impersonating a name related to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax himself has been attacked with endless impersonation accounts, which are all by the same person as the sock puppets group on Wikipedia. Merkel (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You have been promoting that conspiracy theory in many of your edits and even on your own user-page. I can assure you I am not ODS, I even reverted some of this users edits and agreed with other users to remove this article until we get news coverage. You have no proof for your allegations. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax is associated with the alt-right he does not like Jewish people. He has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation for impersonating people [23]. He has also doxxed several RW admins on his website. He is not a reliable source of information and neither are you, you are a vile racist Rightpedia admin. You host personal addresses of anti-fascists on Rightpedia and put images of dead children on their articles, all this is to abuse Google traffic results. You are ok to dox and harass people on Rightpedia but when someone over here merely mentions Eleonóra Dubiczki the owner of your website, you turn up with a fit of rage and request for everything to be deleted. You never play fair, your agenda is to spread misinformation. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. I believe there is enough references so that an Eleonóra Dubiczki link can be redirected to the Rightpedia article. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

   That's reasonable. Bongolian (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Peter Vardy | Result: Redirected to The God Delusion

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

Delete

1. Delete unless the dumpster dive helps it become larger. 💠💿☝️ (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Horrible stub about some random person. Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
3. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 00:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep

#i've fan of ufo and alien conspiracy theories and glad whitney striber page is created but this page is too lengthy shorten it and make sure plagiarism is also removed^{— Unsigned, by: Krish1997 / talk / contribs}

@Krish1997 You're in the wrong place. I left a message on your talk page. CowHouse (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Candidate for speedy deletion. Recommend merging into The God Delusion as a footnote. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2. I'll second that motion. Comrade GC (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
3. I haven't read The God Delusion - is Vardy mentioned in it in a more-than-passing way? If not, just delete this. Readymade (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Morocco | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. This is a stub with no interest to expand it. Bongolian (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
2. We don't document countries just for existing. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
3. -DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Most of the world's countries don't warrant pages here. If you know dick all about something, don't create a page about it in the first place. And don't create stubs in the belief that somebody else will do all the real writing for you. Spud (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
5. This is the third version of the article to exist, and, while better than the previous two one-line-microstubs, is still not much good. Don't just create articles about countries and hope someone else adds stuff, find something worth saying about the place and start from there. Wilder^Bicycle 14:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
6. —HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 20:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
7. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. According to Wikipedia Morocco is an interesting mix of authoritarian monarchy and democracy (their parliament can vote no confidence in the government). If I could have some more time I could do bit more digging and see if there's anything else missional about them. Comrade GC (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Whitley Strieber | Result: Moved to user space

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

Delete

1. Copied from Wikipedia Hertzy (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

   Is it? What parts are copy-and-pasted? I couldn't tell by eyeballing it.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 00:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

   @CheeseburgerFace That comment was from January 1. The page had originally been copied from Wikipedia, it was then deleted, and has now been recreated. CowHouse (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

2. This plagiarism check page[24] shows the RW and WP pages to be different. Nonetheless, it is poorly written and poorly referenced, apparently relying on a single reference. The reference is by a suspiciously named man (Heinrich Moltke)[25] from a seemingly non-existant journal (Peristalsis: A Journal). Bongolian (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

   That is indeed suspicious. Also, @Bongolian I am appropriating your the link to that plagiarism checking site in the name of the revolution. Comrade GC (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

   As author of the new entry, I'm baffled. Most of the entries I see I RW have no sourcing at all. This new entry sources a single paper, but that paper in turn cites all the original sources. I can go in and re-point original sources, but Jesus: is this standard always applied across the board? Hochichi667 (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

   Generally, the source-less articles are stubs or at least short and in need of expanding and sources. Your article is long, opinionated and sourced to a dubious reference, @Hochichi667. I never hard of this journal and could not find it on Worldcat. Bongolian (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

   @Bongolian: Bit of a catch-22. RW promotes original research. But if that research replicates material already found elsewhere online, it's plagiarism. Right now, I'm citing from the paper pretty much only to the extent that it cites other reputable sources. For example, Strieber's own books or things written about him. Even if the journal format is a spoof, the paper's conclusions seem pretty solid. If Strieber says one thing in one book, then in the next book says some prophet came down and told him the same thing for the first time, it's obvious to anybody. If the paper is first to point it out, it seems fair to credit it within limits. That said, like I wrote in the comment below, I hope to cite more sources directly and firm it up in the coming days. I think it's important to not just call Strieber's stories ridiculous, but to highlight how he comes up with the stories in a way even woo-proponents can't deny. Hochichi667 (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. i'm fan of ufo and alien conspiracy theories and glad whitney striber page is created but this page is too lengthy shorten it and make sure plagiarism is also removed Krish1997(talk) 15:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Plagarism is easy to remove. Everything else looks good to me. Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. Hochichi667 seems pretty intent on having an article about this, move it to their userspace until it's properly cleaned up? —Kazitor, ^pending 04:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

   Sounds good. Bongolian (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

   Say, I'm a first-time RW contributor just trying to make a contribution. I'm 'intent' on putting up an entry on Whitley Strieber because he's a big deal in the world of woo. I'm surprised that there isn't an entry on the guy already given his notoriety. Can you tell me precisely what it needs to firm it up? More sources? The entry as written has a lot of gotchas about Strieber that I think would be useful to the public for seeing this sad chump as he is. I'm happy to improve the entry any way I can within reason. Cheers. Hochichi667 (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

2. The article in question needs more sources and polish but I can see it becoming a decent addition to our site. As thus I second Kazitor's proposal Comrade GC (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Very much on-mission in the sense that Strieber has been a prolific source of BS and a purveyor of his own special brand of woo for years. Where it goes off the rails is that it is a virtual copy of an online manifesto by a single individual who obviously has an axe to grind on two or three points important to them. Leuders (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Understood. I'll try to fill it out with some other sources. Cheers. Hochichi667 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Read this. Unlike Wikipedia, sourcing on RW is intended to address "did X say or do the thing we're criticizing them for?" rather than be a summary of someone else's published ideas about X. Happy trails. Leuders (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Unweaving the Rainbow | Result: Turned into a footnote in the Richard Dawkins article

Unweaving the Rainbow (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Crappy stub, though it could be merged with Richard Dawkins. 💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with the article on Richard Dawkins. Comrade GC (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Hit it. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Merge it into Richard Dawkins. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Merge! That's where it seems like it would be most useful. BurgerDominar (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
5. I think it really needs to become nothing more than a footnote on the Richard Dawkins page. And the same goes for the article about Climbing Mount Improbable, which is another crappy, stubby page about a Richard Dawkins book. Spud (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
6. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Merge. Bongolian (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Mass campaigns | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. It's a bad stub with unclear missionality. I don't even support dumpster drive because of that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Delete. It's small enough that it doesn't need a discussion in my view. Bongolian (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

   I was holding out to see if someone can provide a comment on why this can be made to be more missional, so still going to hold out a bit more. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

3. It's unclear why this subject would warrant an article at RW. Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Washington Redskins name controversy | Result: Moved to Essayspace

Washington Redskins name controversy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. A poorly sourced and poorly written screed that reads like a juvenile essay. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Very poorly written, as the author appears to be unable to tell the difference between Washington D.C. and the state of Washington. Comrade GC (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

   EDIT: I am a failure as a southerner given my shit knowledge of American Football. The article is still terrible though. Comrade GC (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. Make it an essay by User:Avengerofthe BoN (the user who basically wrote all of it). CowHouse (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Catsouras v. Department of the California Highway Patrol | Result: Deleted

Catsouras v. Department of the California Highway Patrol (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This article has no obvious connection to RationalWiki's mission. After reading Wikipedia's vastly superior version, I see that there is a weak connection to the Streisand Effect, but this case warrants a one-sentence mention in that article at best. Probably not even that. The Moose (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

   (No offense to the person who created this article during "bored stiff month".) The Moose (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

2. Missionality detectable with an electron microscope isn't enough. Does it even merit a mention in Streisand effect, which is already 75% a list of examples? Wilder^Bicycle 19:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Horrible stub, and non-Missional Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
4. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 00:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
5. -DiamondDisc1(talk) 00:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
6. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Why do we have this again? Comrade GC (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

James O'Brien | Result: Deleted

James O'Brien (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Hopelessly tiny stub and unsourced BLP. CowHouse (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Drive-by article that is unlikely to grow beyond a mere stub. Comrade GC (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
3. -ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Flush it. Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

FactsCan | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. This article is a no-effort stub that was created in 2015 and has not been worked on save for minor maintenenance edits since its inception. If you want to work on project space, but not plan on expanding articles, it's best to leave this on your sandbox space rather than create it in mainspace and leave it this way without satisfying our mission. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 19:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Agreed. Comrade GC (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
3. What BabyLuigi said. Christopher (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. -💠💿☝️ (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. The site hasn't updated in four months either. Vorarchivist (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
6. The article hasn't been updated after it was put on the dumpster dive. Wikipedia even has a stub of the website.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 00:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. The dumpster dive exists, add it to the list. The article does a good amount of debunking, so it has its place on RationalWiki.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 19:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

   We would also lose our Google search rank.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 19:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

   To me, it doesn't look like it debunks much. I like your efforts in keeping it alive, but the article can use more than just a quote, like exactly what claims it debunks and so on. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 19:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

2. Good candidate for the dumpster dive. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Madagascar | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. RW is not an encyclopedia. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Unsourced and off mission. Christopher (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
3. There is nothing missional in the article, and I can't think of anything that could make it missional. (see in Goat) This is not SlightlyInterestingWiki. Readymade (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Nothing missional. —Kazitor, ^pending 23:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
5. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 20:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

Is there any notable woo related to Madagascar? If there is, it could be added to rescue the article. Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 23:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Other than some iffy migration theories? None that I'm aware of. Comrade GC (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Iffy migration theories can be missional. Are any being used to support some kind of agenda? Readymade (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If anyone wrote a good few paragraphs on these iffy migration theories I'd change my vote, but currently nothing in the article is on-mission. Christopher (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Is the article 'too vanilla'? Anna Livia (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

? Christopher (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A reference to one of the sources of vanilla. 'Obscure facts known' are there to be used. Anna Livia (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll go digging around and see if I can find them again. Comrade GC (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

After digging around I couldn't find any information to support the migration claims being iffy, my apologies for my mistake. Comrade GC (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence Lockman | Result: Merged

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

Delete

1. Person said something bad in 2012, hasn't done anything notable since. DiamondDisc1(talk) 07:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
2. As the article in question is a stub with few sources and little in the way of notability it should likely be removed. Comrade GC (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Per DiamondDisc and GrammarCommie. Christopher (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Per my comment below. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Per LGM БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 21:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
3. LGM's suggestion to add a brief note about this individual on the GOP article does seem reasonable, as thus I am changing my vote from delete to merge. Comrade GC (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
4. Per LGM Christopher (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
5. Per all.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 05:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. I'm opposed to deleting it. I looked at the article itself and he doesn't seem like a who just made a one-off sexist remark. One of the references cited, "Rep. Lawrence Lockman made a career of making vile comments about AIDS, LGBTQ people, women, abortion and rape." And even the article says that he is "a long time bigot, misogynist, and generally ignorant hater." He also has a Wikipedia page. On the other hand, despite the claims that imply he's influential, there doesn't seem to be plentiful resources for this politician; even a search on Right Wing Watch has nothing and a generic search engine result aren't notable. I don't support a full article, but his presence is a contribution to the idea that the Republican Party has a bunch of sexist Sus scrofa. I think article at present should be merged to the A very long list of Republicans subsection at the very least. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

   I'd favor merging it into A very long list of Republicans as well. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

   A sound compromise in my opinion, as thus I will switch my vote from delete to merge. Comrade GC (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)