RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2019

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Contents

September[edit]

Political correct | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Poor duplication of bronze-rated Political correctness CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. It's not even worth all the effort you put into creating this debate page. This is a candidate for speedy deletion. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. (EC) Was writing basically the same as Cosmikdebris: Hardly even needs a vote. Vaporise it and leave a redirect. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Mohandas Gandhi | Result: By a very narrow margin, the vote is for delete. If anybody would like to create a better article about Gandhi in the future, that would be great.[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. the bulk of this article concern claims and opinions of dubious merit that should merely be little more than a footnote to anything about Gandhi, supported by substandard sources that are little more than unsubstantiated opinion themselves, all used to make the spurious claim that Gandhi is responsible for all that is wrong with india today, up to and including nuclear war AMassiveGay (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    wouldn't suggest deletion if not for the fact I am not up to task of fixing its faults (its all faults - there is nothing worth saving), no one seems interested in fixing it, and it is so egregiously bad that it is damaging to rw by simply existingAMassiveGay (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    ok when can I delete this shit? (how do I go about doing that?)AMassiveGay (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    @AMassiveGay I'd wait four more days. Then it will have been ten days since you nominated it for deletion. Spud (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Grudgingly voting delete. Though Gandhi had multiple crank views, this article does a disservice to conveying them in its current rambling state. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. It’s like somebody watched a crappy “Gandhi wasn’t so perfect!!!” YouTube video and decided to regurgitate it as an article. The Hitchins quote is dumb and way too long. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 18:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    The Hitchens quote should probably go, or at least be recast into an analysis of Hitchens' claims. It's close to a copyright violation (posting something without comment is not generally considered fair use). --Annanoon (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    there is nothing to analyse. his claims are unadulterated bullshit AMassiveGay (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. It doesn't seem that bad. There is good stuff in it that should be kept. The man is too important to not have an article on. I think AMG is being too pessimistic.Summa Atheologica (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    are you joking? have you even looked at it? it is noting short of an embarrassment. it goes out its way to malign the man, making unsubstantiated assertions and bullshit conclusions supported by sub par sources which are no more than unsubstantiated opinions themselves, blames Gandhi for all the rape that happens in india today, accuses him of being a Nazi sympathiser, and I am not joking when I say it blames him for literal nuclear war. it dos all this with no context for any of the crank opinions he might hold, no information on why he is such an important figure, while at the same time with no evidence whatsoever denying he played any useful in indian independence. whats more its bookended by a bullshit quote from hitchens, which is laughably ironic considering what follows, and an even longer offensively spurious quote, again from hitchens, accusing Gandhi of literally all of indias ills today, providing no evidence and displaying complete and wilful ignorance of the subject. so please tell me - whats good about this appalling article? how am I being pessimistic? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Gandhi was a vastly important figure, and also on some subjects very eccentric, perhaps a crank. Hence he seems totally missional. And there's no requirement for a RW article to be balanced, even on Gandhi. --Annanoon (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    no require to be balanced, but we do need to be accurate. there is no requirement for absolute dogshit either which is what we have. he is a vastly important figure which is why I propose delete. nothing is better than this abortion. i'll tell you now if we don't delete it, I will gut it of the offending parts leaving less than a stub. that will be infinitely more informative than this shite. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. You can definitely gut it.Summa Atheologica (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
i'm not sure you've quite grasped the point there. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Are there actual specific things in the article that you believe to be false? What areas of content do you believe should be covered, bearing in mind this is RW not an encyclopedia or hagiography? It's easy to swear and insult people, but you don't seem to have proved anything at all yet. --Annanoon (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
AMG explained his viewpoint on the article's talkpage. I personally found his arguments persuasive. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 14:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

August[edit]

Cosmetics woo | Result: Blasted with fire for an extreme makeover[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. I noticed this article that was added to newly created articles in our RationalWiki:To do list. The suggestion itself has a respectable score of 80 and is chock-filled with detail of what we can add to the article. I followed the link and was greeted with a totally terrible stub that was created back in 2014 and wasn't touched at all. There's nothing we can work from that stub, it conveys barely anything useful. This isn't even enough for draft space as even lazily copy-pasting the suggestion in our to-do list would still be a way better starting point. Just put this back in our drawing board and have someone who can actually invest effort do it later. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. In the name of Goat, purge this drivel! Summa Atheologica (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. At some point in the future, perhaps someone can do this topic justice. In its current state, it doesn't even deserve demotion to a draft. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Put this pathetic excuse for a stub out of its misery. Spud (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Someone needs to 'make (it) up' into something viable?

The text reads like 'spam lorem ipsum.' Anna Livia (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A product of overdosing on weight loss pills. Look at its mangled state. You can even see the imperfections of the surface of its ribs poking through the skin. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

American law enforcement war on African Americans in the twenty-first century | Result: Moved to Essayspace[edit]

American law enforcement war on African Americans in the twenty-first century (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. This article is very poorly written, as it contains an excessive amount of unsourced statements. The article title itself is extremely tacky as well, almost to the point of being ironic, and the subject that the article talks doesn't even actually talk about the 21st century; the only mention of the 21st century is a single sentence underneath the last header, which serves only to let the reference do all of the speaking than write any information for itself. Much of the article is a rather dry history lesson regarding how blacks were treated back then while not being very missional to RationalWiki. Information that could be said about racially motivated behavior can easily fit into existing articles, such as Law enforcement, racism, police brutality, etc and if a separate article can be made to discuss racially charged motivations, it needs a rework from the ground up as the article in its current state just won't cut it. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 19:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, it’s pretty bad. I think we need a specific article on Race and Policing in America, but this is unsalvageable. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. "a rather dry history lesson regarding how blacks were treated back then while not being very missional to RationalWiki"
    We do debunk anti-authoritarianism and I feel the law enforcement mistreating blacks, especially the history, falls in that scope. I need to ask, are potentially useful elements to this article already covered or overlapped via the Police brutality article? If not, it should be merged there, but that's only if those elements are already substantiated through proper sourcing. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Move to essay space? Tbhat's where it would appear to belong, as an extended and unfinished opinion piece. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 21:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Move it over to essay space. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. Essay/draft this. Too bare. Zero (talk - contributions) 14:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. I note that "race and police brutality in the United States" is currently the #1 most wanted article suggestion on RW's to do list (score 262). Could some of this material possibly be brought over into such an article? --Yisfidri (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

AndromedasWake | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Unsourced page from 2009-ish(?) refers to YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/AndromedasWake which has zero content CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Candidate for speedy deletion. I'm surprised that this page missed the culling when we did the great YouTube purge a while back. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Anglo-Saxon Foundation | Result: Keep. But it needs updating.[edit]

Anglo-Saxon Foundation (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. This article describes a website that has been dead for ages now. It's no longer relevant. Oxyaena Harass 04:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
There's lots of pages on no-longer-existing organisations, whether fascist, communist, or just plain weird. So I don't think an organisation (or their website) being dead is in itself reason for deletion. --Annanoon (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. People spent a lot of time making this extensive article. It might be useful for someone at some later date. Besides they were pissed at us. Bongolian (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Things do not simply become irrelevant. This is a perfectly good article. — Dysk (contribs) 08:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Change to past tense then. Historical content is fine. And these sort of people tend to come back - David Gerard (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Agreed, past tense. We must study the past if we wish to avoid repeating it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Yup, revise to past tense and keep as it is well written and cited. These ideas have not disappeared and I would be surprised if this site doesn’t “reincarnate” under a new name with similar contents and overlapping authors/contributors (that’s a well worn pattern on both the radical left and right; cf. Monty Python’s Judean People’s FrontWikipedia's W.svg in Life of Brian. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  6. We should also add a section on the site's shutdown, and circumstances thereof. Prototype Mad Scientist (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  7. kep Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Door Frankema | Result: Keep. No support for delete. Not much support for delete either. But it stays for now.[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Do we need to have an article on every anti-vaxxer? Spud (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    Can't say she's just another anti-vaxxer. She's apparently the leader of the movement in the Netherlands? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    @LeftyGreenMario Given that the last major edit to the article was in late 2015 I would suspect that the anti-vax community in the Netherlands may have moved on. It might be worth looking into before we decide whether to keep or kill. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    The website that's the target of this article is very slick and pseudo-professional, but appears to be stale; it hasn't been updated in a year or so. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Mentioned by news as recent as April, no reason to suspect she is inactive and certainly not irrelevant or minor. — Dysk (contribs) 08:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  • I think it’s one of those “use it or lose it” cases. Either the stub should be expanded into a proper article or it can be safely scrapped as its current format is rather unimpressive and uninformative, in addition to the above concerns over its possible staleness. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Most of the coverage of her actions is in Dutch-language media. Are there any Dutch-speaking RatWikians who could expand it? --Annanoon (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe so, but anyone can use Google if they like. — Dysk (contribs) 11:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend using Google Translate on claims that may be defamatory/libellous if mistranslated. --Annanoon (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps @Tinribmancer could help? I'm afraid Dutch isn't in my repertoire. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
You rang, M'Lord? Tinribmancer (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

July[edit]

Planet of the Apes | Result: Moved to Funspace[edit]

Planet of the Apes (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Totally off mission. I tried cleaning it up but it still reads like a movie review. Has no mission purpose. Acei9 02:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. How about moving to Funspace? It does have some themes that are missional (Planet of the Apes#Issues addressed). Bongolian (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    I mean you could but it sounds like a movie with some irrelevant stuff shoehorned into it to make it mission like. It serves no purpose. Acei9 04:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Concur with Bongolian on moving to funspace. — Dysk (contribs) 11:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Good suggestion on moving it to funspace. Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Funspace seems right. If it was mainly a one author product, it might have been turned into an essay, but as it is, funspace makes sense. If it is subsequently turned from its current emphasis on being a movie review into something more missional (cf. X-Files for missional pop culture), we can always move it back into mainspace. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Forum of Ugly | Result: Casted into a fire as extreme makeover[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. This article is a short stub from August 2018, nearly a year ago, no expansion, and it's entirely in Italian. I don't know its clout in Italy. This is partially because the article isn't informative and doesn't tell me why I should care about some random foreign forum that's hosted through free web host (it appears to be big and rather active, however). The webpage's design looks disturbing and has a red pill as a favicon, but other than that, can't glean any more information. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Agree, wholeheartedly. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Incel hangout #56 noted. I have no further shits to give. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Yeah. Another example of an article giving something to do with the Men's Rights Movement more attention than it deserves and another example of an article about an unimportant website. Spud (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Don't care about this stub enough to keep it. — Dysk (contribs) 11:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  6. Delete the article, but add a mention to Incel. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Could it go to Manosphere glossary? --Annanoon (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    But how will this fit? This isn't exactly Manosphere lexicon. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  • Is this "A nobody with a blog forum" or is this "we're english speakers and none of us pay attention to foreign sites that are notable"? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah it being in Italian is a major factor. — Dysk (contribs) 19:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
It's more of "this article on a subject we cannot really verify its scope and messages is not a good article". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

DataMasher | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. This article documents a now dead web site and includes no references except for the site itself. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. It's been dead for at least 4 years. It wasn't important when it existed and it certainly isn't important now. Spud (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Don't think we need this. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Meh. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 03:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  6. Kill it with fire. Oxyaena Harass 04:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  7. Zappity zap. — Dysk (contribs) 09:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

June[edit]

Fun:Outline of History | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Nothing links to it. It's as funny as toothache. I'm so glad we've moved on in the 12 years since this was created. Spud (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Seems a tad lacking in anything. — Dysk (contribs) 10:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. If anyone really wants it, they can just move it to Uncyclopedia.Summa Atheologica (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  4. Aye Hertzy (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  5. Per above. I didn't think it was that bad from Spud's description but I checked the page and he's right. Jinx (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  6. Nah. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 22:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

May[edit]

Popular music | Result: Five votes for delete within an hour of nomination, including one from the person who created it. This didn't stand a chance![edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Beyond our scope. This is not an encyclopedia. Spud (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. There's a possibility that pop music overlaps slightly with our mission, but you'd have to work hard to get not much, and there's zilch in the current article. Avida Dollarsher again 08:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Not much missionality to pop music. Could perhaps make a fun page I guess. — Dysk (contribs) 08:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Oh there's definitely scope for a fun page - sadly, though, the current page isn't much fun. Avida Dollarsher again 09:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. Nook Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 09:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  5. I'm the first producer of the document. I don't care if you delete it, but I hope you don't. I'm....interested in entertainment, but I don't know it very well. But I am more confident to fill out the document!--Gracchi (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Artem S. Tashkinov | Result: Quickly deleted[edit]

Artem S. Tashkinov (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Article subject is an internet nobody; content is of questionable worth and written by a single-purpose account likely created for the purpose of furthering an internet grudge. See more on the talkpage. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 01:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Agree, also I made these points on talk.Tobias (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. Doesn't seem to be promoting anything worth criticizing. — Dysk (contribs) 01:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. What are we going to do without a legal threat then????😢😢😢 --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  5. Delete. Dr. Ox quack specialist 01:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  6. Delete. TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  7. Doesn't seem to have much to do with our mission. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

The mob seems overwhelmingly in favor of deletion, but I'll leave this up a bit longer on the tiny off chance someone decides to do an "OBJECTION!!!" Even so, this will likely be a speedy deletion. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 01:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Nah, fuck it. There's seven votes to delete. I'm doing it now. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 01:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Parrilla | Result: Deleted[edit]

Draft:Parrilla (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Created by a blocked sockpuppet of banned troll mikemikev for malicious purposes. I believe his two reasons for creating the article were either or both of (a) making his sockpuppet account appear superficially legitimate; (b) scaring or upsetting leftists in particular, who were often the targets of the torture described in the article. I don't think this article is missional or has any future. Wikipedia already has an article on this obscure and disturbing type of torture; RW does not need a dedicated article on it. Greenrd (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. Candidate for speedy deletion. Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

April[edit]

American University of Health Sciences | Result: Keep[edit]

American University of Health Sciences (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. So, this is a fundie school. So what? It doesn't appear to be any different from hundreds of others. There doesn't appear to be a need for this particular school to have a page here. The article as written is a copypasta from the school's web site and is unlikely to be expanded. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. Search results don't excuse lack of effort put into pages. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. Get rid of the article. What a Wonderful World (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  4. Get rid of it. Do we really need yet another article on some fundie diploma mill in the middle of god-knows-where? Oxyaena Harass 00:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Don't see any reason why we shouldn't have a page, it may be boring but it gets first page Google for the schools name, potentially informing somebody. — Dysk (contribs) 21:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    The article, as currently presented, is simply a copy and paste from the school's website. There's basically no other content except for some dubious opinions in the first paragraph that are not backed up by any references at all. At a minimum, the article needs a complete rewrite to be useful to anyone. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    I deleted everything in the article from the schools website. — Dysk (contribs) 19:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. The more info we have, the better. Information seems to be cited correctly and we can always expand it later. Perhaps we could put that on the to-do list? I strongly believe it should be kept. Pootisbird (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. Voting keep just to balance What a Wonderful World Féinléiriú (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    😂 What a Wonderful World (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  4. Notoriety shouldn't have so much to do with keeping a page. Commie Lib (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  5. ye EK (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  6. Keep --MtDBogan 20:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

At worst redirect to the fundie school page so we keep the google search result. Féinléiriú (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

# Seconded. Oxyaena Harass 22:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. FYI, I should make the point that a redirect will not keep the Google result, as GoogleBot will notice the page content has gone and re-rank it much lower. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — Dysk (contribs) 22:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    Having actually looked at it being cleared out there is little value in it, it doesn't even say why it's bad other than it's a fundie school, which will just tells fundies 'Oh this is the place for me!'. I assume it is already listed in the fundie schools list. Féinléiriú (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

March[edit]

Incelosphere | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. the absolute state of this article is a mess. Redlinks that will never be linked. A focus on a timeline no one gives a fuck about. Details of sites that were never popular and now dead. Entirely too friendly neutral treatment of what has evolved into a hate group. None of it is good. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Agree. It doesn't even mention the murder/suicide(s?) associated with it. Could possibly be moved to draft space if anyone's interested in fixing it up. Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. This article is soooo boring. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Kill it with Scorpio.gif RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Bad article. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 20:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  6. Awful. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  7. What a load of shit! Spud (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  8. Launch this crap into the sun. TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. Either kill it or move it to draftspace, either way it is not suitable for mainspace. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. I'm interested in fixing it up. Move to draft space. Thisnthat7 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    What's your proposal on improving this article? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    I propose to add stuff like the Elliot Rodgers episode in 2014, the Alek Minasssian episode in 2018 etc.— Unsigned, by: thisnthat7 / talk / contribs
    Keep in mind we have an incel article for that, so the nominal purpose of this article would be "places incels congregate" and I'd have a hard time picturing a good, and missional version of that. It used to be a redirect to the manosphere glossary, and I don't mind it going back to that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Robin Falkov | Result: Keep[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Subject is dead. Nothing in her life's work seems likely to be notable for long. All web references will soon expire and this article will be without refs. Ithaca8 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Nothing wrong with the article. Also there's nothing in our policy about deleting peoples articles when they die, or any prohibition on using the wayback machine. — Dysk (contribs) 18:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. What Dysklyver says. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. If their misinformation somehow vanished when they died, sure, but that's not the case at all. Keep. Revolverman (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Also with Dysklyver on this one. TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. The reason given for deletion is poor, and the solutions offered easy to implement. Keep. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  6. Keep for above reasons. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 01:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  7. Keep. We're the top Google link for her. It's possible that her woo will rub off on someone after her death — it's happened with other quacks. This page stands as a warning for people. Bongolian (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

February[edit]

Emil Kirkegaard | Result: Keep[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Hi, I would appreciate if you read this in full to understand the situation, why I recently requested article deletions (many, but not all of them my own page creations):
  • For legal reasons I cannot go into much detail or specifics, but only point out in 2018 someone from OpenPsych sued me for defamation; a lawsuit that is ongoing, and there has been a demand to remove all the above RationalWiki articles, hence I submitted deletion requests and voted to remove them. Aeschylus (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. I vote to keep it of course, as the subject is a well know public figure, the article is accurate and missional, and having it fulfills RationalWiki's aim of providing free content for informational purposes. — Arthur Kerensa Esq.legal enquiries? dysklyver@linuxmail.org … 20:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Any demonstrably inaccurate information should be removed if there is any. We do not delete articles based on legal threats. Bongolian (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. While I empathize with Aeschylus' misfortune at being caught up in legal shenanigans with these racist scumbags, they can take their article deletion requests and shove them up their collective asses. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. We don't back from legal threats. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    That's not technically true. "We" don't allow legal threats to dictate editorial policy, but "we" do acknowledge and respond to them, if submitted properly. "We" have a process for formally addressing legal complaints, but it isn't through the wiki editing process. See the RationalWiki:Legal_FAQ. In the meantime, as a regular old editor I would advise that all such discussion be frozen, and this user submit their request through proper channels. I'm not a member of that "we"(i.e. the rationalwiki board) anymore. The appropriate venue for that is addressed in the legal FAQ. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. If we deleted an article every time we got a legal threat we would have to get rid of many extremely mission important articles. Commie Lib (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Direct them to the complaint department, we should never even consider vaping articles because of legal threats. Adjust as necessary? Yes. Vape? Never. For further reference see the Kent Hovind incident. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Keep. Both the pedophilia apologism and scientific racism have been documented in mainstream media (Guardian, New Statesman, etc), so missional and properly sourced. Particularly important as his Wikipedia page was deleted largely for not meeting the notability requirements for academics (which don't apply on RW). --Annanoon (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. If writing articles about racist dickheads is causing problems for a certain user, that particular should stop doing it. And while he's at it, he can get the hell away from RationalWiki once and for all and stop coming back under a different user name all the fucking time. No wonder our opponents think the entire site is written by one man with 300 different user names. But that's no reason to delete this article. If the racist dickheads don't like the articles about them, they should stop trying to use pseudoscience to justify their racism, admit they were wrong, apologize and, hopefully, change their ways. Spud (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Bleat. This article, like all the others proposed for deletion by Aeschylus, was created as part of a campaign of harassment by the nominator, using RationalWiki with, overall, hundreds of related accounts here, all very well-known on the internet everywhere but here, in places that cover such things. See his user page and what he did with his tools as soon as opped. That is only a small fraction of his known socks.

It is no wonder he was sued, his ass is grass. In the biographies he created, he spent much time looking for anything that might look bad, real or not, and related to our mission or not. Guilt by association, words with emotional impact, the whole nine yards. So his sources should be viewed with suspicion, and checked carefully, understanding that they may have been cherry-picked and even misrepresented in the text. Some quotes are taken out of context and presented as if characteristic.

These actually were hit pieces, whether or not the subjects are worthy of RatWiki articles. Intention matters in the real world.

He has been de-opped and blocked indef "for his own good" by the one who opped him. He has actually been blocked on RatWiki many times, and he has claimed impersonation by others that was actually him or someone connected with him. So these articles should be seen in the light of their history.

It was claimed in one of these deletion requests that an article was created by Mikemikev. It was promptly deleted (by Aeschylus) with no objection, even though it was very similar to other articles in this series. If anyone looks at that history, and at all contributions of that user, Schizophreniac, which will take sysop tools to see the deleted contributions, and if what I have seen elsewhere matches the original here, this was not Mikemikev, it was Aeschylus, impersonating himself, creating an actual biography of himself (he recently talked a great deal about his political and "scientific" views on Encyclopedia Dramatica recently, and they match. This guy has played us for fools for years, all to pursue personal vendettas. The admitted editors have been openly admitted to be him, the subject of that article, in many places. Mikemikev I know very little, but he would not have written that article, which was practically laudatory, how he wanted to be seen. Mike would have torn him to shreds, not, instead, giving all his rationalizations for his crank positions. That article, deleted immediately, was not an attack on him, being far more fair to him than any of the articles on others he admittedly created here.

As to the articles, I DGAF. I am not going to repeat this in the other nominations, and as a collection of nominations by a single author, they should have been only one nom, even though results might differ. Consider, though, the implications of the abuse of RationalWiki as a platform for personal attack. --Some random Smith (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Fine, but kirkegaard, in particular, is a huge shithead, whose shitheadedness is very public. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Your choice. There are 79,495,276, give or take a few, shitheads in the world. Go ahead, have a bio on every one, and have their worst enemy write it. Should be entertaining. Most of of the publicity on Kirkegaard was created by the author, who showed media the RatWiki articles, which then, not carefully checking, repeated the claims, and then the articles cite the media. Really, brilliant! Carry on. I'm going to finish the cleanup here and go back to flattening the earth. --Some random Smith (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no libel on these articles. Emil Kirkegaard and his associates at open psych are well documented racist and white supremacists that have been criticized in many references. There is no misrepresentations, everything is well sourced. People here should be warned "Some random Smith" is an impersonation account created by Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, he is the person trying to stir up legal problems behind the scenes. He created his account in 2017, after his Rationalwiki article was created. I repeat - Some random Smith is Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, exactly the same writing style. Lomax is [1] banned from Rationalwiki and was cooped by David Gerard. Last week Abd Lomax was banned on ED for saying exactly the same things as his comment above about Mikemikev, [2]. Abd has written several articles on his website defending racists such as Emil Kirkegaard and Mikemikev. Amazing how he has used this secret undetected account for so long. He should be banned immediately. Roberts (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah whatever, if he goes nuts I will bash him with the banhammer. The sheer number of mostly groundless accusations of impersonation and sockpuppetry of late is getting farcical. — Dysk (contribs) 20:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
nah, that's Abd, I'd recognise that text-producing bioweapon anywhere - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For the record both were banhammered. — Dysk (contribs) 21:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

TFLism | Result: Move to draft[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Unlikely stub of dated manosphere term with a couple degrees too much charity for the concept ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Give me some suggestions to change it and I will do it. Riptohelsinway (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    That's fair. But I had a hard time imagining what those changes could be, which is why I proposed deletion. My biggest problems really are that it's a dead, almost never used term and the whole thing suits the Manosphere Glossary better. But also if it could be rewritten to give less credence to groups self-identifying as oppressed due to being lonely, it would be better. And definitely include less suspect etymology. But even then, I feel like it's not really appropriate as a separate article, no lasting value. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    I've given it a shot. Riptohelsinway (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. I think we should make it part of Incel#Coinage and Early History. It's a pretty significant overlap, and even the two terms, TFL and incel are very alike. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    they're a bit different. TFL is mostly populated by ethnic minorities, particularly blacks as a Youtube search of "tue forced loneliness" shows. Secondly, TFL seems less focused on sex and more on relationships. Incel discussions seem a bit more clinical whilst TFL discussions seem a bit more interpersonal. The third difference is that TFL exists solely on youtube, whereas incels are all over the place. Riptohelsinway (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Merge would be better as per LGM. Bongolian (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Move it to draftspace until it's better, then it could be put in the manosphere dictionary. Don't think it should be its own page, though. Сприггина (яриа) (хувь нэмэр) @ 23:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Dimitri van der Linden | Result: keep[edit]

Dimitri van der Linden (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Stub article with only mention of his London Conference on Intelligence papers; suggest to delete but merge some of it to the LCoI article. Aeschylus (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Needs analysis, but worth keeping. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 14:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Keep. This seems to be an attempted mass delete by Aeschylus because of a legal threat. Correct me if I'm wrong, @Aeschylus.Bongolian (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. If writing about racist dickheads is causing problems for a certain user, that particular user should stop doing it. But that's no reason why all the articles that already exist should be deleted. Spud (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. This should just be given its own section in our already-existing article on London Conference on Intelligence. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSteal my ideas 01:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Jan te Nijenhuis | Result: keep[edit]

Jan te Nijenhuis (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Most of article already covered on London Conference on Intelligence and so doesn't need duplicate. I suggest delete and merging some stuff to the main LcoI article like the others I've created deletion or merge requests for. Aeschylus (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
So do you think the part of the article that covers events 17 years before the first London Conference on Intelligence should be merged to the article on the London Conference on Intelligence? --Annanoon (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. There's more there than just the London Conference. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 14:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Stuff about his PhD and the associated racism row couldn't be merged, but is missional and worth keeping. --Annanoon (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Keep. This seems to be an attempted mass delete by Aeschylus because of a legal threat. Correct me if I'm wrong, @Aeschylus.Bongolian (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. If writing about racist dickheads is causing problems for a certain user, that particular user should stop doing it. But that's no reason why the articles that already exist should be deleted. Spud (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Aurelio J. Figueredo | Result: keep[edit]

Aurelio J. Figueredo (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Stub article that just mentions his London Conference on Intelligence works that are already mentioned on that main separate article, also seems to not be noticeable at all. Article is far too short and pointless, furthermore there's no other sources on the guy. Doesn't need a separate article to LCoI. Aeschylus (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Racist pseudoscientist is missional, has published works, article could be expanded. "Not noticeable" sounds like someone can't read Wikipedia guidelines closely enough to quote them accurately, and we're not Wikipedia anyhow. --Annanoon (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Per above. Radiant Orb (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Tis probably okay and missional, despite being known mostly for this one thing. — Dysk (contribs) 16:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. It's okay. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 14:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Keep. This seems to be an attempted mass delete by Aeschylus because of a legal threat. Correct me if I'm wrong, @Aeschylus.Bongolian (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. If writing about racist dickheads is causing problems for a certain user, that particular user should stop doing it. But that's no reason why the articles that already exist should be deleted. Spud (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Expand the bullet point on him in London Conference on Intelligence. I think it's important to let people know either way that he's not a figure to be trusted. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Gerhard Meisenberg | Result: kepp[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Stub with just his London Conference of Intelligence papers and an opening paragraph with very few sources. He also resigned last month from editing Mankind Quarterly and no longer is associated with it. Suggested delete, but merge some content on either the LCoI & Mankind Quarterly article(s). Aeschylus (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Someone who sells credentials shouldn't leave RationalWiki unscathed. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Keep. This seems to be an attempted mass delete by Aeschylus because of a legal threat. Correct me if I'm wrong, @Aeschylus.Bongolian (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. If writing about racist dickheads is causing problems for a certain user , that particular user should stop doing it. But that's no reason why the articles that already exist should be deleted. Spud (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fróði Debes | Result: keep[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Stub, with too little information and also seems not noticeable; is already mentioned on London Conference on Intelligence. Recently deleted was another guy who attended this conference but article was a stub. Doesn't seem a point in having these articles as these people are mentioned on main article for London Conference on Intelligence. Aeschylus (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Keep. This seems to be an attempted mass delete by Aeschylus because of a legal threat. Correct me if I'm wrong, @Aeschylus.Bongolian (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. If writing about racist dickheads is causing problems for a certain user, that particular user should stop doing it. But that's no reason why the articles that already exist should be deleted. Spud (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Keep - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Don't think we should remove information. If the article isn't suitable, then we should relocate it. We should make mention of him in International Society for Intelligence Research and London Conference on Intelligence, but I guess we can just expand the bullet point on him in the London Conference on Intelligence article. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

James Thompson | Result: keep[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. I suggest deleting and merging some of article to London Conference on Intelligence like the other deletion requests I made - article is too short and just mostly mentions about his LCoI activities. Thompson was the organiser of the conferences. Aeschylus (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. James Thompson is a prominent hereditarian. I thought this site existed to document crankery, such as people who believe IQ is affected by DNA differences. When was "too short" an objection? Radiant Orb (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Mass nominating participants in that conference on the basis of that being "the only thing in their article" when their articles, in fact, contain other things is really quite annoying. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Also sexist and racist tweets, as mentioned in article. Plainly missional, and if anyone can be bothered reading more of his tweets or other texts then I'm sure there's much more that could be added. (As an aside, I know RW isn't Wikipedia but it still has procedures and if you want to merge an article then there is a procedure for that, and it doesn't involve deleting it first.) --Annanoon (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Keep it. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 14:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Keep. This seems to be an attempted mass delete by Aeschylus because of a legal threat. Correct me if I'm wrong, @Aeschylus.Bongolian (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. If writing about racist dickheads is causing problems for a certain user, that particular user should stop doing it. But that's no reason why the articles that already exist should be deleted. Spud (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Heiner Rindermann | Result: keep[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Article is mostly his London Conference on Intelligence papers and little else, no need for two articles, can merge some to LCoI article, but I vote for this deletion like others. Aeschylus (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. No, this is fine. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Agree with LGM. — Dysk (contribs) 22:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Also agree with LGM. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 14:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Plenty of missional material independent of the London Conference on Intelligence. --Annanoon (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Keep. This seems to be an attempted mass delete by Aeschylus because of a legal threat. Correct me if I'm wrong, @Aeschylus.Bongolian (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. If writing about racist dickheads is causing problems for a certain user, that particular user should stop doing it. But that's no reason why the articles that already exist should be deleted. Spud (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Adam Perkins | Result: Keep[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Not much on page except his London Conference on Intelligence involvement and some trivial things such as claims to have apologised for sending some offensive tweets years ago. Would be more suitable to merge some of it instead to main LcoI article. Aeschylus (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Delete is overkill. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Plenty of info in this article anyway. — Dysk (contribs) 22:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Article really isn't bad. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 14:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Could be expanded with material on books and research papers (including that impressive correction which is not provided with full context). --Annanoon (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. If writing about racist dickheads is causing problems for a certain user, that particular user should stop doing it. But that's no reason why the articles that already exist should be deleted. Spud (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

===Goat===‎

Michael A. Woodley of Menie | Result: keep[edit]

Michael A. Woodley of Menie (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Vast majority of article is his London Conference on Intelligence involvement that is covered on main LCoI article; doesn't need two articles. Has apparently claimed article is a character assassination, compare for example to his Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Woodley_of_Menie,_Yr. IMO some of the criticism such in relation to LCoI is perfectly valid, so I suggest delete and merge a small section to LCoI article. Aeschylus (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
That's not a link to a valid Wikipedia entry. Could you try proof-reading your posts and testing your links? --Annanoon (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Annanoon The full stop at the end of the link is part of it, try wikipedia:Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Yr. instead. FYI this is why people should always use [ ] characters to enclose urls. — Dysk (contribs) 18:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. If it's got things wrong, list them or fix them. It's not a bad article in terms of writing, citations, and missionality. I'm aware of the possibility of flagrant misrepresentation, and we should absolutely be made aware of any specifics, but "he says it's a hit piece" describes hundreds of peoples' responses to their RW articles. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Seems relevant beyond the one thing, no real reason or need to delete. — Dysk (contribs) 16:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Why does Aeschylus‎ want to delete all of the articles on these cranks? It seems like a sabotage attempt. Radiant Orb (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    Eh, benefit of the doubt would say that they think articles for each individual nutter from the London Conference isn't worth going into. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, may we please assume good faith here? The "sabotage" accusation is uncalled for. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    It's more likely that Aeschylus came under legal threat. Bongolian (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Keep. Bongolian (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. If writing about racist dickheads is causing problems for a certain user, that particular user should stop doing it. But that's no reason why the articles that already exist shod be deleted. Spud (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Julius Daugbjerg Bjerrekær | Result: Deleted[edit]

Julius Daugbjerg Bjerrekær (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. User who created article is a banned troll (Mikemikev). It's also a stub; Julius Daugbjerg Bjerrekær has a mere BA in sports science and is a nobody, so its off-mission and most of the article about his LCoI papers is already covered on London Conference on Intelligence. Aeschylus (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. It's pretty crap. Somehow it even uses Everipedia as a reference, which is probably not a good sign. There doesn't seem to be any relevance to this person beyond their article here anyway. — Dysk (contribs) 22:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. But why did Mike create this article anyway? — Dysk (contribs) 16:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Impersonation of someone else who he blames the articles on. OpenPsych pseudojournals (who Bjerrekær is affiliated) also banned him from their forum.Aeschylus (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Just pretend someone else made the article. Should it stay? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Purplepill movement | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. This article is just a bunch of poorly-sourced nuttery. 216.56.22.183 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Deleted. Bongolian (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Everything is easily verifiable. I am willing to work on the article if someone lists discrepancies on the talk page. Thank you. Hipppppppy (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Bluepill movement| Result: Redirected to Manosphere_glossary#Blue_pill[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. This article is ridiculous, "Blue Pill" is Manosphere jargon for those that do not share their delusions, i.e. sane people. There is no two sides/middle ground to this issue, there are those who are insane and those who are not. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Delete. Bongolian (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Any additional relevant information should be in the Manosphere glossary. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. This is precisely why we have the Mano glossary. Stubs like this should be deleted. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Not useful as written. If rewritten, chances are low that it'll improve it enough to keep, but I've got an open mind to writing something useful. For now, redirect to manosphere_glossary#whateverthesectionis ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. I have changed the very first sentence to say that the term is jargon used by deluded people. Hipppppppy (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    You need to survey the hole before you dive in. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. Debunking this crap would be missional, but it is possible that Manosphere glossary#Blue pill serves this purpose. — Dysk (contribs) 18:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

January[edit]

Dalibor Jurášek | Result: It's been 12 days. Nobody's said it should be kept. Deleted.[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. The article is barely missional. Dude has basically once written an article which questions the Holocaust for a dodgy conference. He doesn't have a following, he doesn't routinely do this kind of stuff, he doesn't even really deny the holocaust (but does question it). If he does someday become a notable crank we can easily undelete it. — Dysk (contribs) 12:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. He's persuaded me that he's not a Holocaust denier (or, at least, isn't one anymore). Also, one short paragraph and one lengthy quote does not an article make. Spud (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Meh. I don't see any strong basis to keep the article, and the talk page for is convincing me more and more that this article isn't good for Dalibor Jurášek. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]