RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2019

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 2019

Chromosome | Result: Keep

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Chromosome

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

Delete

1. It does not follow the mission statement. The article could possibly enable transphobia with the statement of chromosomes determining gender. RockfordRoe (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

   I removed that part. Yw EK (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep

1. If anything this article needs to be revised and added to. It could debunk pseudoscience about chromosomal disorders and/or explain how the sex chromosomes do not determine gender. Outright deleting it wastes the possibility of it ever following the mission. RationalHindu (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Missional, expandable, and not a stub.Summa Atheologica (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
3. It's fine. We have a lot of dry sciencey articles, so putting up an AFD is inappropriate when we should be discussing about the bigger picture (like, should we have dry science pages?). --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
4. I'm like, 90% sure that chromosomes tie into missional concepts. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
5. Needs expansion, that's all. Tinribmancer (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Goat

1. It's not entirely off-mission, as it's a scientific subject that could tie into debunking pseudoscience, but I don't see that this article really advances the wiki as it stands. 71.215.91.202 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:User Kemal | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. We've already established he butchered religious minorities, so there's no way he can be called "Moderate".Summa Atheologica (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Summa Atheologica (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

   Not to mention that the image used in it is probably a copyright violation.Summa Atheologica (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

2. only one person is using it and they haven't edited since 2014. EK (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Delete. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 15:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Kemal shall feel the wrath of his victims as they finally wreak their horrible vengeance. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

   Wait, Oxy, you're Armenian?Summa Atheologica (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

   No, but I`m friends with someone who's ancestors were exiled from Anatolia due to the genocidal fucks that were the Young Turks. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

   Ok, that makes sense now. I just thought that spirit of euphoric exultation seemed a bit unsettling.Summa Atheologica (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

   It was a shitpost. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:User Ataturk | Result: The terror of the Turk is gone from RationalWiki

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

Delete

1. Reason is that the guy was complicit in the continuation of the Armenian Genocide and in the pardoning of most of those responsible.https://www.armenian-genocide.org/kemal.html Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Don't forget the Greek and Circassian Genocides as well. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

   True about the Greeks, but the stuff with the Circassians was not committed by the Turks.Summa Atheologica (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

3. Yes, delete. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Just remember to update user pages, we had this userbox used surprisingly in some. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

   I found the users by looking and the image transclusion, not on the linking, so I don't think that's much of an issue, but I will do it.Summa Atheologica (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

5. Delete (see conversation in Keep, below) RationalHindu 18:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
6. Fuck this guy, if you really wanna support him then use the code yourself but there’s no reason for this to be in the userbox list is what I’d reckon 💝 ASELA^ಮಾತು 💝 13:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
7. if you want a userbox lie this use it directly or from userspace. EK (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep

1. Why are we even talking about deleting a userbox template? If you don't admire the fellow don't use it. He's a bit more complicated than this discussion suggests in any case. And even if 'enlightened' opinion now says there's only one position to take on Kemal Ataturk now, I don't think we should be imposing it on user pages. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

   I believe that having a template honoring a butcher is not exactly good optics, nor a good thing in general.Summa Atheologica (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

   You wouldn't want a Neo-Nazi template on here, would you, Smerdis? — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

   More proof, if you need it, that nuance is dead. Our actual article on Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is actually full of praise for his achievements. He is the founding father of the current Turkish state. And yes, he had a hand in the final phase of the Armenian genocide. Telescoping his career to that, and claiming that it's all you need to know or should care about where he is concerned, is just more of That Sort of Thing. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

   Developing a state created by genocide and massively benefiting from it isn't even remotely positive. That's like if say, Hitler's successor finished his work but then restored the people's freedom. The Turkish state is founded on seized land and injustice.Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

   This is Smerdis you're talking to, nuance eludes him. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

   That... generally hasn't been my experience with him, whether or not I agree with his points. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

2. I have to agree with Smerdis on this one. I'd certainly never use that userbox because I lived in Turkey for a year in 1997/98 and I found the extremely strong personality cult that continued to surround the long dead Atatûrk very disturbing. But I wouldn't stop other people from displaying the userbox. Why not just edit the userbox to add, "(Well, probably not for being complicit in the Armenian Genocide)" or something like that? Spud (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

   IDK what's the difference between this userbox and a hypothetical userbox saying that Adolf Hitler is totally tubular? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

   Godwin's Law, FTW. 71.215.91.202 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

3. I agree with Smerdis. Additionally, there's nothing stopping someone from just using the userbox source on their page instead of the template. This happened with the "fake new message" template. People voted it to be deleted so I just used the template source and still have it to this day.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 08:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

   We have a tool to use on people who would honor butchers. It is known as a banhammer. If someone, for example, said they admired George Lincoln Rockwell, Pol Pot, or Ernest Medina, we would use it on them.Summa Atheologica (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

#The name Ataturk is still used by people regardless if they like the guy so I feel like banning a traditional turkish name is racist and unnecessary. If someone uses the name and legitimately supports Ataturk then we should ban them. RationalHindu (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

1. We're not even proposing banning the name. I did this AFD proposal in order to remove a template honoring a mass murderer. The Turks can keep on naming their children whatever they want. They can even name them Talaat, if they so wish.Summa Atheologica (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

   Oh I see now, well I don't see much of a need to delete a userbox that could be subject to Poe's law. RationalHindu (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

   The need is because the guy was a mass murderer and we therefore shouldn't be honoring him with a user box.Summa Atheologica (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

   His good obviously doesn't outweigh his bad but most folk don't support Ataturk because he continued the Armenian Genocide but because of his presidency basically created the Turkish nation-state and being a firm supporter of secularism. RationalHindu (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

   Said nation state is extremely shitty, and as Summa said was built off of stolen land and the graves of the Young Turks' victims. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

   I...uhh...you're right. I admit that wasn't a good enough reason to keep it plus I now think it should be deleted. Should I just delete my vote (I'm a bit new so I don't know what I should do)? RationalHindu (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

   I've done that bit for you :) Avida Dollars^{her again} 18:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Goat

If you want an offensive userbox for whatever reason you can simply use the code directly on your user page. It is not hard EK (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Decent point. This can be interpreted as a platform issue.Summa Atheologica (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This happened on Wikipedia several years ago and the person got banned over it. 71.215.91.202 (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

sad. EK (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was nothing other than a blackguard and a tyrant, whose only real claim to be remembered by history is as the villain-in-charge of a genocide, the first place to deal with this problem is in our article on the man himself. Not at an AfD about a userbox. I don't have a dog in that fight. But if we're deleting things people use to decorate their userpages because this is the orthodox and only acceptable assessment of MKA, the bigger problem would seem to be the tone of our current article on the subject in chief. That article doesn't even mention Armenia or Armenians. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 07:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

That is no longer a problem, courtesy of yours truly. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Political insanity | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. I think the very concept that the more libertarian elements of leftism are equivalent to the right and/or are "insane" is a false equivocation at best. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep

1. I'm not convinced by this rationale. I don't think it is being implied that the more libertarian elements of leftism are equivalent to the right and/or are "insane"; rather, the category is simply a useful tool for navigating the insanity specific to - or originating from - different parts of the political map. "Libertarian moonbattery" for instance encompasses crazy ideas that happen to be on the libertarian/left side, but does not in any way mean that everything on that side of politics is crazy (compare the "Left of reason" category.) The more sensible ideas on the libertarian left, by definition, do not qualify as moonbattery and would therefore be outside the scope of the category. –Yisfidri (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

   What would you call "sensible"? Anything that upholds capital? My rationale is that it's extremely arbitrary what is considered "insane" and "not insane." — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

2. I don't really think Oxy's point has much, if anything, to do with the category, and I don't think it really implies some sort of equivalence. I do not think we ought to split up or delete a perfectly reasonable category.Summa Atheologica (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

   First off it uses ableist rhetoric, second off the category is written from a centrist perspective, which is hardly fair. Outright dismissing something like anarchism as being crazy is just peak centrist bullshit. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

   The centrist bias can be erased, and I do not see any ableism. It goes without saying that centrist positions are nearer the mean and therefore automatically considered as generally more sane. Summa Atheologica (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

   It equivocates some radical ideologies with mental illness, I think that's ableist and bad form. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

   In cases where this "mental illness" is contagious, like in politics or in religion, it has little or nothing to do with brain development and hence cannot really be called ableist.Summa Atheologica (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

3. I think Oxy is missing the point of these categories. The point is not to blanketly label certain ideologies as bad. The point is to identify which part of the political spectrum certain crazy people or ideas come from. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

   Oh, my bad then. Sorry for causing a ruckus, I`m in a bit of an irritable mood anyways. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

   Ah, it happens to me too. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

4. This is a container category for the other "moonbattery" and "wingnuttery" categories. There's another debate to be had about the usefulness of these categories, but this isn't the place. Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Relaxed | Result: Burned at the stake

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

Delete

1. Just a bit of trivia about the Spanish Inquisition. Doesn't merit its own article. Spud (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Delete. Bongolian (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
3. One euphemistic term, especially one nobody really cares about, and whose content is only a stub and has never been more than that, never merits its own separate article.Summa Atheologica (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
4. SNOW delete - this is bit a of trivial jargon about the Spanish Inquisition. It's not even worth bothering with a redirect. Avida Dollars^{her again} 20:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep

1. Because this section was empty. It was so lonely I just had to provide it with some company, how could I not? — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

—Yisfidri (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge to Spanish Inquisition. Mildly interesting trivia. --Annanoon (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Above—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 01:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Would be a lot more informative if it gave the original Spanish or Latin. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
4. I think this bit of trivia is relevant enough to be added to the Spanish Inquisition article.--Yisfidri (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
5. Just plop it in Spanish Inquisition article and remove the redirect. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
   1. Done. Now... fetch - the comfy chair! Avida Dollars^{her again} 18:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Goat

No-one deletes the Spanish Inquisition! 109.204.116.189 (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Autistic dark web | Result: Goat

Autistic dark web (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Lacks references, or solid reason to exist- appears to be primarily a snub-piece to oppose differing views, needs reliable sources from the reference "autistic dark web" group, to prove it even exists. Along with the removal of statements that are clearly personally-targeted, like making an "or claims to be autistic" remark. - It should also be noted that the majority of source cited do not reference any "autistic dark web". MichaelB2019 (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   "Oppose differing views." You mean call out Nazi tools for what they are? — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   The vast majority of claims here have no form of references to confirm their authenticity, and the ones which do eiter link to a literal satire (openly fake news) website, or link to blog-posts that are making libelous claims about individuals without providing evidence. If it is "calling out Nazi tools for what they are" they provide evidence, do not simply allow claims to remain unsourced and empty. MichaelB2019 (talk)

   I`m sorry I don't speak Nazi, can you translate for me? — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   I'm not a Nazi, I am a left-wing liberal, moderate socialist. Voting Democrat in 2020, But thanks I guess? MichaelB2019 (talk)

   Christ, Oxyaena. If you're going to try to convince someone (I have little knowledge of this concept), then your behavior isn't helping me at all. Give out actual arguments, not just labeling people Nazis. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   Thank you, I have decided I will go about re-writing the article according to available information, since the concensus appears to be that it is worth keeping, even as a term used to describe individuals over an actual group. MichaelB2019 (talk)

2. It doesn't say much about the ADW at all. Probably not worth keeping. Yuvle (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep

1. "Pro-cure." Fuck off. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   Yeah because writing "Fuck off" is a real argument as to why it should be kept. MichaelB2019 (talk)

2. MeToo. --BluePink (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
3. It's a term people use, even if nobody wants to be called it. Needs improvement, like most articles here. (I don't know if merge is a possible solution, maybe.) --Annanoon (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Goat

1. If your argument is true, that'll mean you rewrite the article or add the missing information, not outright delete the article. I think firing a talk page comment would be way more appropriate than an article for deletion at this moment. Also, it seems like most sources refer to that term directly? I didn't see it in Guardian piece, but it's there in every other reference. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   If that is the appropriate approach that should be used, than I will re-write the article with what information I can find. But I will provide some evidence as to the inaccuracies of this article here. It references the autism cafe ran by Eileen Lamb as "providing a greator platform" without adding evidence to this; rather they cited an article which includes the same accusations (no evidence), but also includes the author admitting to have contacted Eileen's employer for information. At most this article by the Aspergian should be referenced as "Eileen has been accused of supporting the Autistic Dark Web", as there is nothing indicating her support. - It should also be said that another source, Glossy News is literally a satire website. MichaelB2019 (talk)

   Sure. I don't know if autistic dark web is much of a concept myself rather than a term describing a loose set of people. In the meantime, I'll get @QuietLuna, the initial user that made the article to try to explain the edits being made. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   I am an autism advocate over on various social media platforms, from my experience with hearing the term it is nothing more than a slur to describe someone who is pro-cure(pro-cure as in actual medical research, not anti-vaxxers, ew). The "founder" (referenced in the article) Thomas Clements has even stated that it's a satirical buzzword [1][2], I would like the input of the original creator to have made this article as well, and to know if they have any source for half of the claims here. MichaelB2019 (talk)

2. As an autistic person, I don't want to delete the document (though I didn't fill it out).--BluePink (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

   But is there any specific reason for it to be kept? if there is I will happily re-write the article with the proper sources and descriptions of the satirical term. Personally I only found out about this article whenever I saw Eileen Lamb replying to a Twitter thread about it, stating that it was libel. (...which it is, as she's never supported any group called the autistic dark web, or given them a platform). Actually has rejected any affiliation.[3] MichaelB2019 (talk)

Vector | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. encyclopedia page completely off mission ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

   I would kind of like more discussion. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

2. The page is puzzling and the author hasn't made much of a reason to have a page. We need seriously contextualization for jargon-heavy garble like "object V that is a set over a field", "A vector space can be a set over a ring", and "A subspace is nonempty, contains the zero vector, and is closed under vector addition and scalar multiplication." --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
3. I have a pretty broad personal definition of what sorts of pages contribute to the site's mission. This page does not contribute to the site's mission. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 21:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
4. Just a page for an abstract vector enthusiast to guff on about eir pet subject. Avida Dollars^{her again} 11:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
5. I really don't see what the point is of having it here. It's not a subject which has any real controversy, or any political or theological importance beyond its use as a mathematical tool. The article is neither entertaining nor useful for the layperson. It's aimed firmly at those experienced with mathematics, although they presumably already know what a vector is. I'm pretty inclusionist, and if vectors were even very tangentially missional, I'd say keep and rewrite, but with all due respect for the effort involved, RW shouldn't have a drily factual, jargon-packed article on every topic from every academic discipline: that's what Wikipedia is for. --Annanoon (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep

1. As I noted before, it is supportive of missional pages, and such supportive pages have been considered missional. I am not against modification. Bongolian (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

   Kinda a dead discussion. I don't know how the article, as is, can support literally any other page. There's not a single page on the wiki I can imagine linking here, and leading to a user getting something they didn't before. I can see it on wikipedia, but the page sucks entirely with no redeeming value right now. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   Visit the original talk page on the vector page. I make a list of articles that this page supports. Zackarycw (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   Why not use those articles this page supports as a means of contextualization then? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

2. Expressions like $w_{1},w_{2}\in W$ are obviously witchcraft, and therefore missional. No word made for mere humans to speak could have that many W's. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, I too love to describe my spacial orientations in abstract, continuous sets. This is important to me. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

   We call that "Waluigi". --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Goat

If you do an advanced search, it shows that there are at least half a dozen pages here that use the term 'vector' that could be linked to this article, but currently are not. It's an okay article, but the crappy last section referencing Alex Jonezzz really drags it down. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

How to Persuade an Atheist to Become Christian | Result: Persuaded to deconvert from being an article

How to Persuade an Atheist to Become Christian (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. It's a page on a random WikiHow that's also dated (note that WikiHows are also always prone to changing). Any semblance of purpose this page has is covered better in other articles including atheism, "I used to be an atheist", FAQ for the Newly Deconverted, and others. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
2. Almost entirely lacking in meaningful content. I don't care about a WikiHow page. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 22:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
3. Devoid of useful content and candidate for speedy deletion. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
4. A wiki article about another wiki article the contents of which aren't very shocking or controversial. At least, they aren't anymore. People with radically different opinions have tried several times to completely rewrite it over the years to reflect their point of view? No! You don't say! I've never seen that happen on a wiki before! And it's on an obscure wiki that most people haven't even heard of. Not worthy of our attention. Spud (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Political correct | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

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)

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.

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

Delete

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. DuceMoosolini^{Your 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

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. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 14:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

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

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

Delete

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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)

Goat

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Delete

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. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 19:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Goat

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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

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

Delete

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)

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

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

Delete

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

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 Front 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 DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 15:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Delete

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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

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)

Goat

• 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 2019

Planet of the Apes | Result: Moved to Funspace

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

Delete

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)

Goat

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

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

Delete

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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)

Merge/redirect

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Goat

• 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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

DataMasher | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
4. Meh. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
5. DuceMoosolini^{Your 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)

June 2019

Fun:Outline of History | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

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. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 22:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

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!

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

Delete

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 Dollars^{her 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 Dollars^{her again} 09:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

4. Nook DuceMoosolini^{Your 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)

Artem S. Tashkinov | Result: Quickly deleted

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

Delete

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. DuceMoosolini^{Your 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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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)

Goat

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. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 01:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Nah, fuck it. There's seven votes to delete. I'm doing it now. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 01:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Parrilla | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

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)

April 2019

American University of Health Sciences | Result: Keep

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

Delete

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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

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 --MtD^Bogan 20:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

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)

March 2019

Incelosphere | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
4. 

RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Bad article. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 20:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Awful. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
3. What a load of shit! Spud (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Launch this crap into the sun. TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Goat

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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

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

Delete

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

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. DuceMoosolini^{Your 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)

February 2019

Emil Kirkegaard | Result: Keep

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

Delete

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):

• In 2015 I debated John Fuerst on the OpenPsych forum. I quickly realised OpenPsych are far-right pseudojournals publishing pseudoscience about race and intelligence. I then looked into the main person behind OpenPsych, Emil Kirkegaard to discover in his OpenPsych publications - he self-cites himself hundreds of times, up to 38 times in a single paper, something he is still criticized for. In other words he abuses academic citations (virtually no one else cites his work) and is a pseudointellectual. I then did some further digging into his background to discover he has no qualifications in what he talks about, is a eugenicist, Islamophobe (he claims he wants to ban Muslims from entering Europe) with alt-right political views etc (while he denies the latter, its well documented). At the beginning of 2016, I wrote 3 RationalWiki articles to expose OpenPsych: Emil Kirkegaard, John Fuerst and (what became) the OpenPsych pseudojournals article; the latter was created originally as a sub-section of Kirkegaard's page, but was eventually made into a separate article. Over the next two years I then found a load more cranks associated with OpenPsych who attended the London Conference on Intelligence; I then created the following articles: Heiner Rindermann, Edward Dutton, Aurelio J. Figueredo, Dimitri van der Linden, James Thompson, Noah Carl, Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Jan te Nijenhuis, Fróði Debes, Gerhard Meisenberg, Adam Perkins and Anatoly Karlin, while also the International Society for Intelligence Research and London Conference on Intelligence article.

• The are some articles Kirkegaard and OpenPsych wrongly claim I created, when I didn't: Richard Haier, Richard Lynn, Davide Piffer, Robert Plomin, Eric Turkheimer, Intelligence and Mankind Quarterly. Basically Kirkegaard just blames me for any page about a hereditarian and/or racialist on this wiki. While I've created most of them, I haven't all of them; the claim I created the Turkheimer article is bizarre since I support his research (he's an anti-hereditarian) and I criticized his article when I saw it and it has been entirely rewritten.

• 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

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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)

Goat

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 [4] 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, [5]. 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

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

Delete

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

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

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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

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. ⵚⴱⵔⵉⴳⴳⵉⵏⴰ (ⴰⵡⴰⵍ) (ⵜⵉⵡⵙⵉ) @ 23:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Dimitri van der Linden | Result: keep

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

Delete

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

1. Needs analysis, but worth keeping. DuceMoosolini^{Your 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

1. This should just be given its own section in our already-existing article on London Conference on Intelligence. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{See what I'm planning} 01:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Jan te Nijenhuis | Result: keep

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

Delete

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

1. There's more there than just the London Conference. DuceMoosolini^{Your 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)

Aurelio J. Figueredo | Result: keep

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

Delete

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

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. DuceMoosolini^{Your 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

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Gerhard Meisenberg | Result: kepp

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

Delete

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

1. Someone who sells credentials shouldn't leave RationalWiki unscathed. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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)

Fróði Debes | Result: keep

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

Delete

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)
2. Not at all noticeable - he's a low-profile psychologist from Denmark, www.frodidebes.dk and the article has very little information DeLonghi (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep

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)
4. Keep this one. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

James Thompson | Result: keep

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

Delete

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

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. DuceMoosolini^{Your 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)

Heiner Rindermann | Result: keep

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

Delete

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

1. No, this is fine. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Agree with LGM. — Dysk (contribs) 22:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Also agree with LGM. DuceMoosolini^{Your 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)

Adam Perkins | Result: Keep

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

Delete

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

1. Delete is overkill. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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. DuceMoosolini^{Your 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

===Goat===‎

Michael A. Woodley of Menie | Result: keep

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

Delete

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

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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)

Julius Daugbjerg Bjerrekær | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

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)

Goat

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Purplepill movement | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

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

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)

Bluepill movement| Result: Redirected to Manosphere_glossary#Blue_pill

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

Delete

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
4. This is precisely why we have the Mano glossary. Stubs like this should be deleted. DuceMoosolini^{Your 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

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Goat

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 2019

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

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

Delete

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, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)