RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2020

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 2020

E-begging | Result: Deletus

E-begging (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This isn't missional. We are not a general reference site, nor an internet culture site. This article, if it needs to exist, would be better suited on another wiki Hastur! (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Just seems like a bullying page :/ Neiltyson1fan (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
3. For once, Hastur and I both agree on something; this article just isn't missional. Our article on TJ "I hope you drown in rape s*men" Kirk already has a section on his e-begging, which I think is the only missional part of this article- and therefore I see no good argument for keeping this. That, and the fact that nobody's voted to keep it yet. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 08:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
4. This label might, maybe, possibly be a legit category (probably not) marking abusive users but, as a standalone, it doesn’t work. Taking begging out of the beggar’s full story weakens it to “here’s a list of bad people’s lesser-but-still bad behavior.” DerFluchtPlan (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
5. It's just a fundraising technique, which can be used for good or bad by literally anybody. It's no more missional than the premium rate telephone line article we nuked a while back. Avida Dollars^{her again} 11:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
6. Sophie's right, as usual. Spud (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

   You misspelled "ever." Avida Dollars^{her again} 18:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Just nuke that example list. The concept is relevant given certain types of cranks we cover never seem to run out of ways to pilfer money from their audience to stay afloat. That example list is however completely unneeded and reads like it came straight out of 2013. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 13:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

   Should we also have an article for "cranks sometimes have dayjobs?"-Hastur! (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

   "Cranks sometimes use excess hair products" DerFluchtPlan (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

2. What Sirius said. IveBeenFrank (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
3. Somewhat relevant, but as Sirius said, the list of examples (ChrisChan? No one cares except for ED) is superfluous. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
4. Relevant since cranks often do this. Donald Trump especially. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 17:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
5. -Flandres (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• As Sirius said, the example list should be nuked. If kept, it would go on forever. Bongolian (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Possibly we could have a Category:E-beggars that we can then stick on to the relevant articles. Avida Dollars^{her again} 12:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:MGTOW TV | Result: Nuked like Hiroshima

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

Delete

# --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See what I've been messing around with} 06:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

1. Self-promo draft that runs directly contrary to our mission. Nuke it from orbit I say. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 13:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Yeah, this seems like self-promo crap. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 17:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
3. It's a load of shit. They can make an essay or something if they really want to. Twodots (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Hopelessly tiny stub; started as a rather transparent attempt at self-promotion by two drive-by miggies who have "channels" on this irrelevant alt-tech hate site, and who have recently been spamming our site with stupid whitewashy stubs and then whining when we refuse to let them turn this site into yet another MGTOW playground, just like AoT did. This can easily just be cut-pasted into and redirected to our existing MGTOW article; there isn't much to talk about, as the topic isn't notable enough. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See what I've been messing around with} 06:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
2. I propose merging this into MGTOW. A general paragraph called "Alt-tech hugboxes" or something similar could easily be added there with a mention of this webshite using the content of the draft article. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• Who cares, it's in draft space-Hastur! (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Hopelessly tiny stubs originally created as self-promotion in draftspace are still hopelessly tiny stubs originally created as self-promotion. We have never treated our draftspace as a clone of the essayspace, where the pages must be left untouched by the mob unless they're really annoying; their being in draftspace hasn't stopped us from voting to either nuke or move-and-redirect similarly pointless drafts lately, and we don't need these drive-by MGTOWs shitting on our site. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See what I've been messing around with} 07:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Unless draft space is indexed I don't see a reason why we need to care-Hastur! (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Because they are still articles speaking in our voice. Even if they're stubs, they're not clearly delineated as the work of a single editor, but rather the product of our community because anyone can edit Drafts (userspace Drafts are as a result more free form on this manner since they're clearly the users own product). The RationalWiki voice is supposed to be missional, and this article runs against that notion, even if it's in draftspace. It not being indexed by Google doesn't mean it's not hurting our image. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 13:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Articles in Draftspace are not technically official RW articles yet. That sort of the point of Draftspace. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Gynocentrism | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Hopelessly tiny stub; all "references" are shitty, weirdly-formatted ones from the shitty dumbfuck who made this shitty stub, with shitty views on women and anyone who finds his totally-not-misogynistic ideas absurd or disgusting, added in for shitty reasons. At best I think the somewhat-salvageable "examples" section could be merged into our existing "Misandry" article. --Goatspeed. _{How's my editing}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 07:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
2. "Off with his head." — The Red Queen. Bongolian (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
3. Per CR. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 13:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
4. Delete this poorly written crap, but add an entry to the to-do list as a placeholder in case someone comes along that can author a proper treatment of the subject. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
5. This is covered under Misandry ans well as Radical feminism and to an extent Trans-exclusionary radical feminism. This is just an attempt by some MGTOW variety of misogynists to enter anti-feminist propaganda here. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 17:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
6. Nuke it. Twodots (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Vote to keep in draft, as it's a it's similar to other -isms that get their own pages at some point here. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• We can just let this rot in draft space-Hastur! (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:George Floyd | Result: Moved and redirected to the appropriate section in Police brutality

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

Delete

1. Not really missional. Contents can be merged into other articles. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Perhaps a concise subsection in the articles police brutality or racism would suffice? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Same as above. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{Steal my ideas} 18:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
3. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
4. I'm with GC... Twodots (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
5. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 04:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
6. Per GC. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 13:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Fax | Result: Vaporized before the discussion even started

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

Delete

1. Dumbass bullshit 45.56.183.85 (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Goat

This unneeded for a piece of vandalism that was dealt with post haste. I recommend immediate closure and archival. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Racial Holy War | Result: Kept, but needs to be improved and expanded

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

Delete

1. Obscure RPGs nobody knows or cares about are not notable enough to warrant an article on here, even if their nature is missional. Also, this page is a hopelessly tiny stub written almost entirely by just one editor and moi- and my edits were entirely just format and grammar maintenance; nobody has made an edit to this in nearly a week. --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{Prototype lab} 03:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Iwillprobablygetbanned (Reply) 09:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. If we can have an article on Ethnic Cleansing (video game), I don't see why we can't have an article on this. Racial Holy War is pretty infamous as one of the worst RPGs alongside F.A.T.A.L. and HYBRID, similarly to how Ethnic Cleansing is known as one of the worst FPSs. ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.120.83.254 / talk}
2. No reason to delete. Needs a few small fixes which I can do. ShabiDOO 07:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
3. Bongolian (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
4. I share the opinion of the BoN above, as I had Ethnic Cleansing in mind when I wrote down the article for such RPG. It is so bad that like such videogame it shows quite well the mindset of people who develop such things Panzerfaust (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC).
5. Keep. RaHoWa is also some far right cult, which someone should write about I think. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 13:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
6. Keep on the basis that it’s interesting. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 04:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Proportional representation | Result: Kept

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

Delete

1. Off-mission; too many unsourced statements, presents very little information in weird ways --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{Steal my ideas} 23:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
2. It's not off mission but pretty badly written offering little help. ShabiDOO 10:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Fits in with our other articles on voting systems. Not specifically missional but very supportive of our missional content. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 13:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Worth keeping. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 15:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
3. A stub in need of improvement, but missional nonetheless. IveBeenFrank (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
4. -Flandres (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
5. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Cepheid Variable | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Off-mission, stub, not relevant. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 05:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Derp ShabiDOO 10:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
3. Don't forget to delink properly. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 13:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
4. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 14:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
5. Purely scientific content; yes, it's science, but it hasn't attracted any crazy science deniers, anti-scientific religious fanatics, or self-proclaimed doomsday prophets- so why make an article on it? --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 03:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. I disagree that this is off-missional. I think it best if we add this as a section to one of our articles on astronomy, if that's feasible. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

   But it isn’t too important of a topic either that we need this content on this topic. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 05:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Justice Democrats | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Pure political content; not really missional. Not substantially updated in eighteen months, and unlikely to be updated further. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
2. I second the motion, neither debunks nor informs within the scope of the RW mission. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
3. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 19:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
4. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{My experiments} 19:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
5. Some minor stuff that might hold value, but our page reads like an ad for them. As is, the page is undesirable. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 13:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Goat

1. Maybe some refutations of the centrist bunk surrounding progressives in general, and the Justice Democrats in particular, are in order? — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

   Depends on what you mean by "centrist bunk". --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{My experiments} 19:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

   The kind issued by the dem leadership and their army of mindless Blue MAGA followers. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

   That's great and all (false equivalency aside), but most of us don't agree with you on what constitutes "centrist bunk". --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{My experiments} 18:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

   That's because most of you are at best clowns who've read a Wikipedia article on a subject and think you're an expert all of the sudden. How do you define centrist bunk? — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

   Cool, glad to know anyone who isn't extremely far left is stupid because you've read Marx. Have fun being needlessly condescending and alienating people who agree with you because you're more concerned with purity of ideology than policy. Twodots (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

   Sorry, that was overly blunt. Twodots (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Prodigy | Result: Nuked, with nothing of value being lost

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

Delete

1. Hopelessly tiny stub, lots of broken English and vague definitions; we already have an article on what is basically the same thing. --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 19:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Bongolian (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Dana Perino | Result: It's gone, and no one will miss it.

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

Delete

1. Not really missional. Do we really need this snippet of politics from the George W Bush era? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Not missional. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
3. Might have been of marginal relevance and interest in 2007. Isn't now. Spud (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
4. Bongolian (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
5. Pretty hopeless. I also don't want to clear the way for articles on Trump's random press secs. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 19:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
6. Hopelessly tiny stub. Nobody's voted to keep this yet. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 19:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:New Daily | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Hopelessly tiny stub. Doesn't even have proper grammar or even any citations to tell us why we should care about its topic (which may be missional, but is it notable?), and made by an editor who is openly hostile to certain parts of our mission and once even cooked up a Russophobic shitstorm. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{Prototype lab} 06:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
2. When the page is this tiny, it shouldn't require a vote. Bongolian (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
3. What Bongolian says. It would seem that the user who created the page also has moved on to making different pages, so cleaning this one out isn't too big of a deal. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 07:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Template:Trout | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. terrible Hastur! (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

   What's so terrible about a trout? Looks fine to me... - Rairyu75 (Talk) 23:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

   Why? Because a few people used it in your talkpage in good faith, and it hurt your feelings? You know, for someone who always defends people who hurt others' feelings in an actually meaningful way in actual bad faith while taking a passive-aggressive dig at those who were offended, you sure seem really keen to AFD this just because you don't like it. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{My experiments} 00:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Facts don’t care about your feelings, liberal snowflake! 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 23:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
2. Er...why? Oh, and "It personally offends me because I was trouted" is not a good answer.-Flandres (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
3. Can serve a useful purpose. Spud (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
4. Is very useful when it comes to letting someone know that they did something silly. No real argument is made for deleting this other than "I just really don't think this should be so because it hurts muh feelings". How does this even have an AFD? --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{My experiments} 00:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
5. wtf Hastur? — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 02:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
6. Scream!! (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
7. Old and much used in discussion, dumb and bad AFD - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
8. Hell no. Electros^Pardon? 13:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
9. Proposing slapping proposer with the template. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 14:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
10. Fuck you Hastur! Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 14:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
11. Fuck no. Trout are awesome. Twodots (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Dietary cholesterol myth | Result: Moved to Dietary cholesterol. Doesn't look like anyone wants to delete it anymore.

Dietary cholesterol myth (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This is not a myth. The most recent high powered studies find that it increases both blood LDL cholesterol, CVD risk and all cause mortality risk:

   https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/109/1/7/5266898

   https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2728487

   And other high quality studies finding that it increases total blood cholesterol have been around for decades:

   https://www.bmj.com/content/314/7074/112?ij

   Even if all of these studies were wrong (I don't believe they are as they are higher quality than many of those mentioned in the article), it would clearly still be a matter of scientific debate, not a myth.

   In general the whole article contains many poor quality sources and unsourced misleading claims (for example that only vegans promote this idea) while consistently ignoring higher quality sources like those above.

   I suggest the page be deleted, or at least the name of the article should be changed to "debate" not "myth" and the extreme bias against the above science and any other bias should be corrected. AlecGargett (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   All incorrect. Dietary cholesterol does not increase CVD risk or LDL cholesterol in the general population. The dietary Guidelines For Americans 2015-2020 have removed limits on dietary cholesterol. Show a recent umbrella review or systematic review for what you are claiming. You cherry-pick a handful of cohort studies and an outdated paper from 1997. You are not doing science. Lastly Google "dietary cholesterol myth". Mainstream health agencies now describe it as a myth. Johns (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   That first claim is like saying heroin does not increase heroin levels in the general population (most people eat very little eggs, so of course it won't be significant), and it's not what the article claims. The article claims that there is a consensus of no risk, includes low quality studies while omitting *all* studies that contradict the claim of a consensus including the higher quality meta regression. "You cherry-pick a handful of cohort studies and an outdated paper from 1997." No, the meta-regression I linked included 55 studies and is higher powered than the umbrella studies. AlecGargett (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

   You were challenged to give a single systematic review to back up your claim that dietary cholesterol increases CVD risk and all cause mortality in the general population. You failed to do this, so you lost the challenge [1], you resorted to pasting in the same paper which you go on and on about because its the only evidence you have. You have not provided any new evidence compared to me pasting in loads and loads of reviews. I am not going to respond to you any longer because its clear you do not know how science operates. You say an umbrella review is low quality compared to a single meta-regression analysis. That is obviously not true. An umbrella review offers the highest quality evidence available (I am sure other editors here would back me up on this). This kind of review looks at many more studies than just 55 trials.

   In total I have provided 10 systematic reviews published from 2013-2020 and two umbrella reviews (I listed most of them) from 2020 that say dietary cholesterol from eggs does not increase CVD risk in the general population. Several of these concluded the opposite. For example they found that egg consumption has a significant reduction in risk of CVD. What you are claiming is a minority opinion not supported by the broad consensus which I listed. We do not ignore systematic reviews and umbrella reviews for a single meta-regression analysis that analyzed data from 2652 individuals. If dietary cholesterol significantly raises CVD risk then why does every health agency around the world claim the opposite and why are there no reviews that claim this? Have you thought this through?

   55 small sample studies from not even 3000 people is not conclusive evidence against hundreds of studies that have examined millions of people. The data from all the reviews I have listed adds up to millions of people from many different populations that is the best quality evidence in existence but you ignore it all for your minority view. You seem to be advocating a minority opinion because it suits your vegan bias so you just want to look at only a few thousand people sampled. Your claim that most people eat little eggs is not supported by any evidence either. See recent comment by another user on the talk-page. Japanese people have the highest life expectancy on the planet yet they eat the most eggs compared to any other country.

   According to what LeslyWilliams linked to [2] - A Japanese individual eats 320 eggs annually, does that appear to be a little amount to you? Lastly the meta-regression analysis you cite was mentioned in detail by the a panel from the American Heart Foundation they are more qualified than you and me on this topic and their review concludes dietary cholesterol does not increase CVD risk in the general population. They did their own meta-regression analysis and it contradicts the other "No significant association was observed between dietary cholesterol and LDL cholesterol or HDL cholesterol concentrations". Use the talk-page to continue any discussion about this but you lost the challenge so you lost the debate. You are not looking at what the majority of studies say. We should not give equal weight to minority viewpoints. I am looking at data from millions of people whilst you are looking at a few thousand. If you just ditched your pseudoscientific vegan diet and objectively looked at this you would agree with the scientific consensus. Johns (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

   How does AlecGargett explain this? https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/111/4/795/5713417 Association of egg intake with blood lipids, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in 177,000 people in 50 countries "In 3 large international prospective studies including ∼177,000 individuals, 12,701 deaths, and 13,658 CVD events from 50 countries in 6 continents, we did not find significant associations between egg intake and blood lipids, mortality, or major CVD events." Derek (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

2. Yeah this ain't debunking anything, merely presenting a weak argument, for once side of the scientific debate on the subject, whilst dismissing the other. The premise of the article, incorrectly calls out legitimate scientific evidence, as a 'myth', which is absurd. Judge Dredd (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   Unfortunately you don't understand this topic and have never edited a dietary related article on this website, you just want it deleted because you had your tech rights removed over that mess a few months ago, you blame me for that and now you log in here to eye up anything I edit. There is nothing I can do about that but dietary cholesterol does not increase total blood cholesterol and CVD risk in the general population. I have listed umbrella reviews and other evidence [3]. If you know anything about science you know that umbrella reviews are the best type of evidence we can get. It is very much a myth, even the NHS and British Heart Foundation says so on their websites. Eating an egg it does not increase blood cholesterol for most people, this is considered a 'myth' by mainstream health agencies. This is a scientific fact. It is a myth because it was once believed true. We don't need to delete a science based article. I don't think it needs a name change but if so we can discuss that. A deletion is way uncalled for. As for AlecGargett he is a known vegan activist. He wants the article deleted. Johns (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   Irrelevant. This page is not missional as written, under this title. Altering the page radically, moving it to a new title, and fixing the obvious errors, would in effect make it a new page. If you want to cite, certain bodies, you will note that other bodies disagree... hardly conclusive. Your assertions are not supported by your evidence. Judge Dredd (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

   No there isn't a 'huge' debate about this topic hundreds of studies have been done on this and only a handful say the opposite, we don't need to go with the handful, we reflect the consensus (the evidence from the majority of studies). But I changed the title because Alec has been moaning about it. Its only vegan bodies that disagree. If you look at the scientific bodies and mainstream health agencies or organizations - British Heart Foundation, NHS, HEART UK, British Dietetic Association, American Heart Foundation etc they have all said on their websites that dietary cholesterol does not increase CVD risk in the general population. There is no conspiracy, why are they all saying the same thing? They are not all wrong lol. This is a website that represents the mainstream scientific view on health topics, we do not need to cite fringe views or one study out of hundreds saying the opposite. If one vegan organization claims the opposite we don't go with the vegan one. I am not aware of a single health body that claims dietary cholesterol increases CVD risk. You have admitted to veganism [4]. That explains your bias against the mainstream health view. This isn't a vegan wiki. What I show is the mainstream view. The vegan view is not mainstream therefore we do not need to give it equal weight. Johns (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. If there are problems with the page, then improve it. Bongolian (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   OK I have done so, but there are also problems with the name of the article, because the name is misleading. Can someone please move it to "Effects of dietary cholesterol? Cheers. AlecGargett (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   I went ahead and improved it an my edits were all reverted. On the plus side, the article name has been changed. AlecGargett (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

2. Keep, per talk [5]. The current mainstream medical consensus from science-based medicine is that dietary cholesterol does not increase LDL blood cholesterol or CVD risk in the general population. Unfortunately, AlecGargett is a vegan conspiracy theorist (yes you can Google him to see who is he and his posts on a veganwiki). Johns (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
3. -Flandres (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
4. Per discussion on talk page. Would you have any confidence in studies offered by an anti-abortion agitator, claiming that abortion causes some kind of medical problem? The same principle applies here. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 05:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
5. The talkpage suggests that this is at least a relevant subject to have.Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
6. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See what I've been messing around with} 01:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Queer Nation | Result: Deleted. If someone wants to create a new and better article about this in the future, that would be fine.

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

Delete

1. This stub was created in 2013. In the last 7 years it was edited three times, the last edit made in 2015. It is extremely short and completely unreferenced. It's also not funny in any way, nor is it informative. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 13:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
2. It's missional but it's also dated (nobody edited it in 5 years) and it has no references. Bongolian (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
3. Not worth keeping. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
4. Even if that little paragraph were referenced, it wouldn't deserve a page of its own. It could just go on the ACT UP page. Since it's completely unreferenced, the best thing to do is to nuke it.Spud (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
5. Hopelessly tiny stub; may as well just copy-paste this into a new section in an existing article on gay rights. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{My experiments} 23:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Seems missional enough. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 19:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
2. Flandres (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
3. Changing my vote to keep-Hastur! (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
4. Wikipedia article is fairly extensive, and mentions troubling incidents of outing. Could be easily improved, though I don't have much of an internal road map for the subject. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 21:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• I usually vote for deletion, but if it's true they're involved in LGBT rights protests in Russia then this article could be expanded to further our mission-Hastur! (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• What Hastur said, minus the voting for deletion part. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with both of you that the topic is highly missional. But the fact that nobody bothered to expand this in 7 years kinda makes me think that it won't be expanded. I'm actually kinda hoping that since I nominated it for deletion one of our editors will decide to quickly adopt this little stub and upgrade it. I wanted to add it on to my list, but there is already plenty there to keep me entertained for a while. I wanna hear what the others think, but do you two think we should move it to draft space? Or maybe one of you is interested in expanding it? (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) - Rairyu75 (Talk) 14:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  I`m barely involved with this project anymore. If someone else doesn't do it, I may consider editing it, but for now I am not interested. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  If somebody would like to create another article about this some time in the future, that would be fine. But it doesn't look like anything's going to happen to improve the pathetic stub we've got now. Spud (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A New Radical Centrism | Result: Deleted

A New Radical Centrism (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Seems to be very small, standard alt-rightist. Not expansive enough to warrant an article IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
2. Just some random guy on Twitter, it seems like. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
3. A quick google search gives me no impression of wider influence.-Flandres (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
4. Seems to be completely unknown outside their facebook/twitter bubble. Why bother? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
5. A nobody with a blog is still a nobody. A nobody with a YouTube channel is still a nobody. A nobody who happens to be on Twitter and Facebook is most definitely just a nobody and doesn't warrant an article. Spud (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
6. Bongolian (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
7. Article was written by Smith, the guy seems to be a nobody and the article represents some of the worst of our "hear ye, this man is a cunt", without adding substance to it, problem that some of our articles have. Three reasons to delete and none to keep make this an easy decision. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 11:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
8. This is a Smith article, not one of his best works. While I'm marginally inclined, to keep Smith's work as a set, I'll go with the mob here. Judge Dredd (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. The user:A New Radical Centrism is unlikely the real user but an impersonator. See the discussion on article talk I made. 143.110.166.152 (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   I'm not sure why that issue is being brought up, as it was not stated as a reason by the delete camp. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   A suspicious account A New Radical Centrism suddenly shows up and within 12 hours there is a article for deletion page. Had that fake/impersonator account not shown up there would be no vote for deletion. It's obvious why the impersonation was made - to get this article deleted. The person creating these fake accounts, has a vendetta against the article creator and wants to remove all his page creations. Enigma (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   That's quite a leap. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   Fake account complained, so we looked at the article as a matter of course. The article sucked, hence the vote. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

   Even if it's Mike posing as ANRC, it shouldn't hold bearing to the quality of the page which is exceptionally low and is unlikely to be able to really improve, hence my support for removal. Keeping bad wiki pages up to own the Nazis isn't something I particularly care for. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 11:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• On the one hand, he's something of a nobody. On the other hand, it appears that he wants to alter our coverage of him. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Occult | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. Moronic fallacious ravings that don't touch on occultism. HairlessCat (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. It could use improvement but the topic itself is missional.-Flandres (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
2. Missional. If an editor believes it does not touch on the subject and thinks it’s a “rambling”, they should fix it instead of trying to delete it. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 14:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
3. It's missional. All it needs is more citations. We should just try to fix/expand it, and do more research to back up its assertions. I dunno what's up with this whole War on Stubs. --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 23:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
4. Too missional. If you don’t like it, rewrite it. Or pray for the article’s salvation. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Goat

It's lacking any citations, which is a problem. Can you give examples of what's wrong, or just improve the page? Bongolian (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this weekend. HairlessCat (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Fun:Uighur Genocide | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. There is nothing 'fun' about this page. It is also obtuse. Bongolian (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
2. decidedly not fun AMassiveGay (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
3. not an appropriate topic for funspace Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
4. As I said before, the words "fun" and "genocide" do not go together. Never. And if the creator really feels the need to show the same information to denialists again and afain, like that would make any difference, he'd be better off creating a template. Spud (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
5. This is not really funny. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
6. Article is in extremely poor taste and really not funny. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 15:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
7. What the fuck even is this?-Flandres (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
8. I can not imagine any argument for keeping this.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
9. How the fuck does this funspace article even exist? Who got the bright idea that making light of genocide and Muslimophobia was "funny"? Nuke this POS. Also, it's a hopelessly tiny stub. --Goatspeed. _{How's my editing}CircularRasoning^{See what I've been messing around with} 22:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• Neutral vote. It's making "fun" of a specific "debunk" from CCP nationalists that one of the critics is kind of a nazi. That said, I don't have a particular attachment to the page to vote Keep. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 20:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Caveman | Result: Extinct

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

Delete

1. Unreferenced. Uninformative. Unscientific and poorly defined term. All in all, a bit shit. Not many pages link to it so it really won't be missed. Spud (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
2. Seems to be a remnant of CP-focused articles (first revision notes that the Assfly's brother insisted on using the term incorrectly on CP once). Article has little value in it right now, and I doubt it as a subject will gather value anytime soon. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 08:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
3. Could theoretically be missional but pointless in its current form-Hastur! (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
4. Unreferenced stub. Let's bin it. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 12:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
5. At most, this is just a misconception that should be debunked on some other article related to hominid evolution in the space of a single sentence.-Flandres (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
6. Bongolian (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Cognitive differences between sexes | Result: Keep

Cognitive differences between sexes (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. It's shit. Hedvigsen^{Skreonk here} 10:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
2. Ripe enough to be deleted. Justarandomliberal (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. It's a well researched article with a lot of references. It's on topic by virtue of this being a subject that sexists like to point at. I see no argument for deletion. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 10:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
2. I fail to see any real issues.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 16:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
3. Flandres (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
4. Instead of deleting it, methinks we should just add in some snark, a few improvements, and possibly also a section debunking claims made by sexists (both misogynist and misandrist alike but mostly the former) attempting to use the cognitive differences to "prove" why one sex is better than the other. Furthermore, it's worth noting that this article has been already been around for years. As others have already said, I see no meaningful argument for getting rid of this. --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{My experiments} 01:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
5. Needs a compelling reason to delete. Article looks fine to me, albeit in need of more RW style. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
6. It's well-sourced. As DuceMoosolini said, we need a better reason than 'It's shit' or 'ripe enough'. Bongolian (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
7. Everyone already made the points, no need to repeat them. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk}14:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
8. There doesn't seem to be any valid argument to delete this article. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Xanderhal | Result: Merged into BreadTube

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

Delete

1. Puff piece on Youtube nobody. Just summarizes what his videos are without even looking at their content. Basically a promotional piece on a Youtube nobody who is a nobody. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Oh wow a person who has an opinion about who to vote for. Off mission. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Less than 50k subs on YouTube and less than 5k on Twitch. Sorting the 330 videos by popularity on his channel, the top one has 500k+ views, the second 85k+, and everything else barely tops the 20k mark. At a quick glance I'd say 75% of his videos have less than 20k views. I'm sure he is a lovely guy who has helped debunk mad right-wingers but he ain't notable enough, in my opinion. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 20:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
4. If somebody wants to make a wiki to catalog Youtubers they are welcome to do so.-Hastur! (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

   It already exists. And this nobody has a page on it. Spud (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge into Breadtube as a regular entry. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So that seems to be a vote for merge rather than delete. Spud (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Derp. Vote changed. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 06:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with Breadtube. Tuxer (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Merge a summary of the first paragraph into Breadtube and nuke the rest. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

   this Tulpa001 (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

3. Ditto for Tuxer--Hedvigsen^{Skreonk here} 14:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
4. Flandres (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
5. Oh, this is pigpuncher. Other than one notable escaped from the alt right video and some moments where he seems to slide back into the alt right, I don't think he's that notable, either. Tulpa001 (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
6. Just add him to the list and nuke everything else Rockford the Roe (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
7. Merge into Breadtube. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 06:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
8. Merge into Breadtube. Iwillprobablygetbanned (Reply) 09:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

League of Reason | Result: Not much support for keeping it after a month. Deleted

League of Reason (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Dead blog, not notable, and their Youtube channel has never had any videos. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Per Duce. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 17:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Delete. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
4. I can't tell if this community is historically notable, but it's dead now, and the article is not suggesting notability to me. Tulpa001 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
5. Delete Iwillprobablygetbanned (Reply) 09:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• The link in the article seems to be incorrect they have a still active (if near dead) forum. In general I think other skeptical communities are a thing we should nominally record, even if they're small, but this one is pretty close to kaput. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Lady Checkmate | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. come on guys Hastur! (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Yeah. This is just kvetching about an internet nobody. That kind of stuff is beneath us. Spud (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
3. The entire page is written by User:CanisLupus (as well as a BON but one doesn't have to guess hard that's likely Canis before registering). All other edits are just page/formatting maintenance. Besides that, this person is a complete nobody. I'd suggest asking Canis, but looking at the talkpage, not even they want the page to be kept. I say make it go boom. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
4. See no reason to keep. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 13:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
5. Just seems to be some random blogger. Not even notable. Only relevant Google result for her is this page. EspressoNINE (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
6. Let the gossip boards cover this person. No one cares outside of a very small circle. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Burgers | Result: Speedily deleted

Mr. Burgers (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Who even is this? Seems to be a self-written mess. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 08:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Not wortbn discussing. Speedily deleted. Spud (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• Author has received a 3 day block for general trolling on other articles as well. Just putting it out here to be clear. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 08:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The Faking Hoaxer | Result: After 20 days, it's "keep" by a narrow margin

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

Delete

1. Youtube nobody. Channel has been dead for years and years and has no historical interest. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Tuxer (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Begone. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 21:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Seems to have been on ABC1. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
2. The article is linked to from several RW pages, so deletion could be damaging to other pages unless content is preserved in some way. --Annanoon (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Sourced, not stub length, interesting article. Tulpa001 (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
4. Flandres (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
5. I wouldn't be surprised if years from now this person's work will be presented as proof by the truthers. This little stub is a handy piece of reference for debunking. It's a shame they nuked their channel (is there a backup somewhere? The only thing I could find was this and THIS has 7 million views. When your work is this well known, well... yeah, let's keep this thing.) - Rairyu75 (Talk) 22:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Atheist | Result: Merged with BreadTube

Mr. Atheist (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Youtube nobody. Article has almost no content Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
2. We should also delete "breadtube"-Hastur! (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge into Breadtube as a regular entry. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This was a merge vote. Relisted as one. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 06:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. I've heard of mr atheist. Actually, isn't this a rather big channel? Former right wing doof, now primarily LGBT, mixed quality videos in my opinion. Several channel renames, now Jimmy Snow.Tulpa001 (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge into Breadtube.—cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Yep.--Hedvigsen^{Skreonk here} 14:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Flandres (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
4. Stub article, but the man appears notable enough, based on his subscriber count. Onto the Breadtube list with him. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 20:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
5. Changed my mind. A big channel, but not a crank, and he hasn't done anything particularly notable against crankery that I know about, just average stuff, like response videos. Tulpa001 (talk)
6. Tuxer (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
7. Merge into Breadtube as a regular entry. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 06:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

List of sexuality wikis | Result: Speedy delete

List of sexuality wikis (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. pointless list of redlinks Hastur! (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
2. That's true. It's a naff list of naff websites with plenty of red links that won't and shouldn't turn blue. Spud (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Why--Hedvigsen^{Skreonk here} 10:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
4. —Tuxer (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
5. Pointless promotionism.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 13:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
6. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 13:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
7. What was the point of this? Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 15:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
8. Not really necessary. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Rageholic | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Music reviewer who has some dumb ideas. Not notable at all and not worth an article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Not worthy of an article here. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Honestly writing articles about dumbasses this irrelevant, really acts more like an ad than anything else. ❣️ ASELA^कुरा ❣️ 00:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
4. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
5. No thank you-Hastur! (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Somewhat notorious dumbass, probable fascist based on some of the videos he's put out. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Heard of him, the article is quality, and he's probably a crank. Tulpa001 (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
3. This lad has 270k subscribers. I'll go ahead and assume most of them are angry young kids, lapping his nonsense up. His post debate analysis got 143,000 views in less than a week. I know a guy who watches these angry, anti-SJW crank videos for the kicks, and arguing with people who are fans of this shit, well... I would agree that our article on him isn't great, but it could potentially be improved to the point where it's like a massive, detailed refutation of him, a go to link for anyone needing to convince one of their friends. Guys like this are a f*cking menace. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 18:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

   Yes, but if we remove all the stupid youtube and twitter drama and leave in what's missional, we're left with a one paragraph stub. A paragraph in one of the pages under RationalWiki:Webshites would be more than enough for this "personality." —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

David Sherratt | Result: Annihilated

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

Delete

1. Totally obscure dead channel with almost no content. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Seems mostly irrelevant. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Delete. Bongolian (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
4. Candidate for a speedy purge. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
5. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
6. Not so much crank as kid doing kid things on internet. Tulpa001 (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
7. Did I just read... Discord drama involving a YouTuber with 11k subscribers? Wut? Delete this! - Rairyu75 (Talk) 18:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
8. Just documents somebody's internet drama. We get enough of that here without writing about someone else's. The fact that it concerns a former MGTOW guy turned SJW is largely irrelevant. It could just as easily be about someone who fell out with online friends over who does the best pizza. And it even says the left wing videos he's tried to make aren't very good. Waste of time. Spud (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
9. Delete. The page doesn't have enough merit or worth keeping it, and the channel's dead anyway. Magic Master (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Cdk007 | Result: Deleted

Cdk007 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Random person on Youtube who has been entirely inactive for 8 years. Article also lacks citations. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Irrelevant and unsourced. Tuxer (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Delete. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
4. Never heard of cdk, unsourced, stub length. Tulpa001 (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
5. Stubby McStubface article. What can a newcomer to our website learn from reading this? - Rairyu75 (Talk) 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

#Per Duce. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Withdrawing vote upon further consideration. 17:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. This person's videos are fairly good, and definitely worthy of mention.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

   The channel has been dead for 8 fucking years. Lots of people make good videos. That doesn’t automatically mean that they deserve an article or are worthy of historical note after being gone for 8 years. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

   Why does 8-year inactivity disqualify someone? Their content is still relevant.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 20:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Goat

1. Sounds like he was once fairly important by YouTube standards, but equally it's not a long article and unlikely to be extended. Is there nowhere it could be merged/redirected? --Annanoon (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ExtantDodo | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Zero citations, dead page, subject has been inactive for years. Subject is a Youtube nobody. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Per Duce. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Tuxer (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
4. Delete. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
5. Unsourced, stub length, very few subscribers, never head of ExtantDodo. Tulpa001 (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
6. Hasn't made a video in 11 years. No doubt their detailed rebuttals are missional, and a valuable resource in debunking stuff, but I don't think that means they, as a person, are notable enough for an article. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 17:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• If he has produced good refutations of well known creationists who have articles (Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort), could it be mentioned on their pages? He is already mentioned on Kent Hovind's page, which might be grounds to keep some kind of reference to who he is/was, but he's not mentioned on others. --Annanoon (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Grappling Ignorance | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Youtube nobody. Article has no links references and seems to be a puff piece. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
2. Per Duce. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 17:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
3. Delete. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
4. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
5. Nothing stands out as notable in the text of the article. Very typical experience in the bible belt. Tulpa001 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
6. I feel for this guy, but he's not famous enough to have an article here. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 17:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Geek Feminism Wiki | Result: 7 votes for delete within 4 hours of nomination. Gone.

Geek Feminism Wiki (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. It's a wiki nobody's heard of that's hosted by Fandom (which you may still know by its old name, Wikia). It only has 1,208 pages. It hasn't been edited at all in the past month. Of the eight admins, one last edited in July this year, one last edited in May 2019, none of the others have edited for 5 or 6 years. Beyond changing the default light blue skin to Fandom's readymade purple option, nobody's done anything to customize the wiki. it looks like a bog standard Fandom wiki that nobody gives a shit about. It's not notable. It's not remarkable in any way. It's not worth having an article about it. And our article on it basically boils down to, "Some of it's good and some of it's bad." Well, of course. That's because it's a fucking wiki! Spud (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
2. obscure dead wiki-Hastur! (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
3. Candidate for speedy deletion. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 12:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
4. I see a wiki on Fandom/Wikia is living up to that site's reputation... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
5. It was a good reference for when I was expanding on RMS, but beyond that I recall it being kinda threadbare. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 14:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
6. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
7. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Sex-positivity | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. Short and does no debunking Hedvigsen^{Skreonk here} 10:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
2. See above. Also haven't seen mission justification-Hastur! (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
3. Not really missional. Also, fuck articles with two navbars. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. A relevant topic in countering myths about sex, SWERF bullshit, slut-shaming, and religious anti-sex propaganda, which are very missional subjects. A controversial topic where factual presentation is important. Not a perfect article (needs more discussion of porn and sex work), but it has some information and size is long enough to keep. --Annanoon (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
2. Seems fine.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 19:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
3. Needs more citations, but otherwise OK to keep. Bongolian (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
4. Needs some work, but otherwise relevant enough. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 12:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
5. Judge Dredd (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
6. Tuxer (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
7. Things can always be improved. But I have no problems with this, the fact that is relatively short has no bearing on whether it should be deleted or not. Many articles start as stubs. I would say that "authoritarians" as a group usually have a problem with anything "sex positive" - so what's not to like?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
8. Flandres (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• Since it is pretty short, I removed the rating.--Hedvigsen^{Skreonk here} 06:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ernie Fletcher | Result: Delete

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

Delete

1. Do we really need an article on an obscure Kentucky politician? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 21:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
2. While some state governors are missional in my opinion(The tea party crackpots, some of the more awful centrist Dems)for their antics, Ernie does not appear to be especially notable.-Flandres (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
3. Judge Dredd (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
4. In answer to Cosmikdebris' rhetorical question, "No," And a 12-year old article on a living person without a single reference? Not a good sign. Spud (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
5. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 12:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
6. Not missional as far as I can tell, part of the political stub pandemic. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
7. hoo? wut?-Hastur! (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
8. Don't need articles on randos. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. A good thing to point at whenever the GOP whines about "blue city corruption".𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 21:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Liberal wingnuttery | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. goofy overly specific political labeling Hastur! (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
2. There isn't a worldwide version of "Liberal" at all. North American liberals are more conservative than the liberals from Europe, but way more progressive than the "liberals" from East Asia, Middle East, and Australia. If anything, the people from Liberal Wingnuttery would be more at home here.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 11:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

   If you regard right-wing liberals unconditionally as centrists, you can understand politics in a distorted way. For example, conservative liberalism, liberal conservatism, national liberalism and classical liberalism are right-wing ideologies, not center-left ideologies. Israel's Likud is also a national liberal party. But they use rather anti-Islamic and populist rhetoric, and are they centrists, too? In the North American "liberal" means social liberalism(=Center-left ~ Left-wing), but in Australia "liberal" means conservative liberalism(=Center-right ~ Rignt-wing). The two have very different philosophies in mind.--BluePink (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

   Even Geert Wilders, a Dutch "national liberal", is a far-right anti-Islam politician.--BluePink (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

   Calling Wilders a "liberal" is like calling Hitler a socialist. Just because he calls himself that doesn't mean he is a liberal. What, are you actually going to believe this prick? It's fair enough that those end up in Conservative wingnuttery or Nationalist wingnuttery, not really liberal.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 16:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

   Nazism is not recognized in academia as socialism in the orthodox sense. But right-wing liberalism, on the other hand, is a branch of liberalism.--BluePink (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

   Academically, Nazism is not socialism, but national liberalism and conservative liberalism are a branch of liberalism.--BluePink (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

   Actually, outside of his anti-islam crap, he is a fairly liberal politician (doesn't justify the anti-islam crap of course). This runs him contrary to the other Dutch far right politican, Thierry Baudet who is just a proto-fascist in the style of Le Pen and similar contemporaries across Europe. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 15:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

3. Yes, delete. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
4. It's getting really tiring to see all these subjective moonbat/wingnuttery categories proliferate here. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
5. Yes, there are indeed some distinctions between the definitions of “liberalism” and “conservatism” as used in, say, US and European contexts (with the European one tending to be more like classical liberalism and the US being more like social liberalism, while US “conservatism” is more in the vein of radical right wing reform/revolution, than Burkean “change to conserve”). However, I have a hard time conceiving of the current examples in this category as being meaningfully liberal (without the “neo” prefix), as they instead tend to be either more about “conservative” (especially in the US sense) wingnuttery, similar to the wingnut appropriation of the human rights concept of “free speech” as a shield for their xenophobic/racist/bigoted/etc. shitting on other people, or about extreme neoliberalism than about any form of broader (classical/social) liberalism per se. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
6. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
7. Overly specific, not obvious to the layperson what it means, I'd also take issue with several of the people in the category who are definitely not centrists or centre-left or Free Democrats - Wilders, Sarkozy, Liberal Party of Australia, Elon Musk, etc are variously Eurofascist, mainstream right, mainstream very right, full of shit, etc (individual members of any category are disputable but when there's a lot of disagreement it suggests the category is too vaguely defined). In fact it's hard to think of a centrist who doesn't have occasional wingnut ideas. If you really want to diss a centrist/US liberal/centre-leftist, Category:Centrist stupidity is much clearer. --Annanoon (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Politicians who tend to be right-wing liberal are common in Europe and Canada. It must be different and distinct from "Liberarian wingnuttery".--BluePink (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

   There are right-wing liberals in the United States as well as in Europe. (Is Michael Bloomberg a leftist politician? But he is certainly a liberal. not liberarian.) This category must not be Vaporize.--BluePink (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

2. How else is anyone going to bitch about neoliberalism?𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

   Category:Centrist stupidity? If you want to create a useful list for those that subscribe to neoliberals, then just make Category:Neoliberals rather than a vague "liberal wingnuttery"? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

   So how should we classify right-wing liberal wingnuttery in Western Europe, Northern Europe, and Australia?--BluePink (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

3. We have Category:Liberal moonbattery, this can easily work as it's opposite. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
4. Judge Dredd (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• Unless there are other examples that clearly encompass both wingnuttery and (classical/social) liberalism and which can’t better be designated as outright neoliberalism (for examples of harsh, socioeconomic measures in the name of free market fundamentalism and the like), I think that this category makes little sense. Instead, it would probably make more sense to have some form of “neoliberalism” category for the likes of Bloomberg, Musk, Yeltsin and of course neoliberalism itself and chuck the rest into other forms of wingnuttery (as already mentioned, I think they’ll fit better into conservative wingnuttery). ScepticWombat (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think Bloomberg, Musk, and Yeltsin are conservative. They are obviously right-wing liberals.--BluePink (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, that’s why I suggest placing them in some form of neoliberalism category, though I may not have been clear in communicating this. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Bloomberg we can call a centrist-Hastur! (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Conservative liberalism and neo-liberalism are not synonymous. Therefore, this category must be maintained.--BluePink (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  In theory, I’d might agree with the non synonymous argument, but in practice, we don’t currently seem to have any entries in the conservative liberalism category that isn’t either clearly conservative or neoliberal. And yes, I do include Bloomberg in the latter category, because US neoliberals calling themselves “centrists” is similar to US radical corporate rightists calling themselves “conservatives” (demanding radical changes, rather than Burkean “changes to conserve”). ScepticWombat (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  BTW, if we keep the category, I think there might be something to be said for reversing the order to liberal conservatism, since most of the liberalism in these cases seem to be about the classical liberal aspect of free market (something that has morphed into outright free market fundamentalism in the case of US “conservatives”), more than about, say, civil rights (something that neither Bloomberg, Musk or Yeltsin seem to have been too concerned about). I guess my question is, what exactly is the reason to label Bloomberg, Musk and Yeltsin as being fundamentally liberal? And which definition of liberal (or conservative) are we using? ScepticWombat (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism are different. There are the following 'conservative liberal' center-right political parties around the world.(ex. FDP.The Liberals, People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, Progressistas, Venstre (Denmark), Democratic Party (Luxembourg), Minsaeng Party etc.) Even in the Republican Party of the United States, former Presidents of Dwight Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller are not liberal conservatives, but rather conservative liberals.--BluePink (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism are different Yeah I definitely see us as cutting down political categories even further. Left/right/centrist, moonbat/wingnut, categories for more specific movements (libertarianism or anarchism, for example). But further than that is just tedious, subjective, and honestly a little embarrassing for us. We're not taxonomists of politics and acting as such will bring us more headaches than anything else-Hastur! (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Liberal Conservatives | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. more goofy overspecific contradictory political labeling. Also the fact that the meaning of conservative and liberal changes by country makes this category even stupider Hastur! (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
2. Candidate for speedy deletion. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
3. This term isn't even defined all that well. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
4. We've been steadily moving away from defining people according to deliberately vague and deliberately silly sounding labels we've made up ourselves. We definitely don't need a new one. Spud (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
5. Delete the moonbat categories while we're at it. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
6. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
7. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Australian Progressive Coalition | Result: Deleted

Australian Progressive Coalition (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Stub created eons ago about an obscure political organization. They appear to be active on facebook but their website as cited has gone away. It seems no one here is interested in expanding this. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
2. After doing some digging, I could find their new website but even that was pretty damn small. I can find no indication of notability, at least not in the same sense as similar groups we have articles on(the Justice Democrats for instance).-Flandres (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
3. Ace^Moderator 03:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
4. Sure. Bongolian (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
5. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
6. Judge Dredd (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
7. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 12:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
8. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Goat

1. I`m sure it could be fleshed out more, but I`m not particularly moved to care about it either way. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Oscar Zeta Acosta | Result: Deleted

Oscar Zeta Acosta (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Pitifully tiny stub and not really applicable to RationalWiki's mission. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

   The only RW article that links here is Hunter S. Thompson. If deleted, I suggest replacing the link in that article with a link to Oscar Zeta Acosta, which is a much better article. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

2. Flandres (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
3. This was created in 2008, barely expanded for a few years until 2011 where afterward, hasn't been edited since until there was this delete template in 2020. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
4. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
5. in a future version maybe, but not as is. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 20:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
6. I think I wrote this originally. Happy for it to be deleted. Ace^Moderator 21:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

CosmicSkeptic | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. if we remove all the claims that are nonsense and unsupported, there is nothing left of the article and no reason to have oneAMassiveGay (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
2. Always happy to delete a Youtuber article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
3. Might be worth it to propose a purge of the overwhelming majority of our youtube personality articles-Hastur! (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
4. Irrelevant internet personalities don't require a presence here unless they're notable in some other fashion. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 20:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
5. From what I know of cosmic sceptic, he's not notable in any way relevant to RW Tulpa001 (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
6. I'm lenient towards articles on YouTubers if they're interesting or relevant or worth discussing even as examples of a wider phenomenon (100 YouTube views is about 95 more views than most academic papers get), but this is just a tiresome personal attack on a non-entity. He's been to Israel! He follows Jordan Peterson on YouTube! He said something vague about Ben Shapiro! He put up YouTube videos almost nobody watched! Hardly a criminal mastermind. It's hard to see how being in draftspace will make it better. If you can't entertain me or tell me why I should care, delete. --Annanoon (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
7. I think that qualifies as a hit piece. It's scraping the bottom of the barrel to make the guy look bad. Just because you've been to Israel doesn't mean you support everything done in the name of the Israeli government. And, yeah, the guy's a nobody. I also think it's about time we had another Great YouTube Purge. How about we only have articles on YouTubers with at least 10,000 subscribers? Spud (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

   As of now, CS has about 373,000 subscribers, but other than that, this article is pointless.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 11:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

   Well, obviously the number of subscribers wouldn't be the only criterion for inclusion. But we could probably get rid of a few articles on non-entities if we took 10,000 as a cut off point. Spud (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Goat

1. The original author of this article is a newbie, and I was hoping to get some comment from them before just deleting the article. I might propose moving to drafts if they prefer. Tulpa001 (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

   Ok, move it to drafts then Catgrrl37-0 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

2. Kind of tangentially missional. At least it's not simply "political". I would also like to see the original author's justification.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

   i did alert the author of this process when i initiated it, though to be honest they have not engaged with any criticism on the articles talk page. they have made minor tweaks to the article in meantime, so im doubting that they not are not simply unaware of the issues raised. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

   Sorry, I was busy with other stuffCatgrrl37-0 (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC

Ijeoma Oluo | Result: Delete

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

Delete

1. Pet project from ages ago that remains a stub and was never missional. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
2. Unless there's a reason that she's missional for any crankery or if she's the target of cranks (which the article doesn't mention), seems to not be missional. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
3. Not missional in its current form-Hastur! (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
4. The two quotes take up nearly half the page. Not a good sign. Spud (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
5. --Hedvigsen^{Skreonk here} 08:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Move to draft space. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
2. Draft. She herself has some notable writings(and maybe the facebook suspension is relevant in discussing they way social justice politics are handled on social media) but it would need a lot of work to become worthy of mainspace.-Flandres (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• It seems missional or else we have to be removing critique related to social justice from the wiki. The article itself being useful, I can't say for sure since it's so short but I don't think it's a useless article per se. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, we need some social justice stuff. What we don't need are crappy stubs on random bloggers who have said things about social justice. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Is this a random blogger? Or is the article dressing up this person as more than just that? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  She's hardly a random blogger; she's had a book published by Hachette, had articles in various well-known publications[6], and has a ridiculously overly referenced Wikipedia page[7]. The RW article doesn't really prove her relevance, although both as a humanist and a writer on race she may well be on-mission. --Annanoon (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  I did some digging at that last one (the Wikipedia page). Take care to not think that a lot of references is grounds for her needing a page here, since I would argue it doesn't. Rather, the overreferenced material seems to be the result of an AFD request that went nowhere, where some people started digging up references to make her pass notability guidelines. Furthermore, the quality of her Wikipedia page is frankly on the low end, with a lot of slanted writing (not always bad on RW, but is always bad on WP), which to me suggests that it's written by a fan. Unless she's notable for having been on the receiving end of a hate campaign from the cranks we cover or if she holds moonbat beliefs or something similar like that (and nothing I see in her WP article suggests as much), I don't think we need an article on her. As it is, her page is just a simple advertisement that doesn't tell me anything I can't gleam just as easily from her WP page. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 10:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Asexual and aromantic glossary | Result: Delete

Asexual and aromantic glossary (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Is hopelessly off mission and contains impenetrable jargon on subjects this wiki should have no interest in. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
2. Overly specific and obsessive. Contains excessive obscure and cryptic terms (particularly in identity microlabels) like "aegosexual", "amatonormativity", "fictosexual", "iculasexual", and other cryptic terms like "peach fuzz", "dragons", and "perioriented" (I know what "squish" is though). I don't know if I speak for authority over asexuals, but considering myself one, I've never heard of any of the microlabels myself. Common terms like aromantic and asexual are already covered in Asexuality. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
3. Veers very quickly into off-mission land. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
4. Seems to be a pointless specific page with no real use to support our existing articles. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
5. -Hastur! (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
6. Being asexual or aromantic must dramatically increase the amount of spare time you have to make shit up. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

   This collection of strange neologisms isn't unique to asexuality or aromanticism. Come on. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Seems way too specialised a page. But the terms ace, aro and aromantic should be rescued and moved to the LGBT glossary. They are in common use. Tulpa001 (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• I don’t necessarily oppose this idea in theory, would it be possible to just keep the glossary to terms that are used in other mainspace articles maybe? 💞 ASELA^ಮಾತು 💞 04:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Just saw there’s an LGBTQ glossary, so actually I don’t see much need to keep this one specifically instead of just merging it under some kind of subheading in the other one. 💞 ASELA^ಮಾತು 💞 04:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

LGBTQ orientation glossary | Result: Keep

LGBTQ orientation glossary (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Page is hopelessly off mission, containing jargon that ventures into absurdity like "Achillean" or "Julietian" or "Trixian" and a bunch of acronyms referenced constantly that make the page difficult to even understand. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
2. Given how many links this has to some sort of LGBT wiki, wouldn't such an article be better off there?-Hastur! (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
3. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Personally i've found this one of the most complete glossaries of LGBT+ stuff and honestly appreciate having a good index on this for when these terms come up on the site in general nya ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ ^{[all-lowercase name pls] talk} 17:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
2. It could need work, yes, but I think this would be a good resource to have in principle...-Flandres (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
3. Needs some work but is a good reference. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
4. Ref. goat, but beyond that, per cosmik and flandres. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
5. Seems generally useful at least in concept. Understand the distaste on reading teh whole text: don't think we should be promoting weird neologisms that probably have little currency outside of Tumblr (and probably not much there), but this is a matter of editing, not deletion. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
6. Social justice is missional, as it relates to authoritarianism. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
7. Needs improvement but not deletion. We could use the transgender glossary for help.--Hedvigsen^{Skreonk here} 09:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
8. I reveiwed it and didn't find any major flaws. Does not have ally, only straight ally. Many neologisms and acronyms are obscure. Odd inclusion of Yaoi and Yuri. I think it's sufficiently on mission, and complete if we ignore the missing trans stuff. Tulpa001 (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
9. —Tuxer (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• Hmm I think the wiki should cover some social justice aspects so I think this page overall might be able to be justified. I do support at least cutting the obscure jargon like the meat of "Emerging or neologistic orientation identities", " Acronyms", "LGBT slang and colloquialisms". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Maybe move this page to a new Glossary namespace. The page is not quite missional, but these glossaries could work well to support our existing pages. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• If this is kept, I fully intend to trim out the garbage then. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Left-wing glossary | Result: Deleted

Left-wing glossary (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. The page is among some of the many glossaries that seem to be open canvases for pet projects. This one is particularly excessive (in terms of how many glossaries are on the wiki). The content, however, is sparse for now (ACAB? Class Traitor? those are pretty much that) and not even necessarily related to the ideology. I can see this glossary, which has a big flaw in being a really wide net, going quickly out of hand where people try to insert every single concept under this. If Alt-right glossary is too big, it at least tries to justify its existence by arguing there is a strange lexicon of euphemisms, and the subject matter itself is more focused rather than just right-wing terms. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
2. Yes, delete. Too short, too broad, not missional. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
3. Nothing that could not be better covered elsewhere.-Flandres (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
4. This is bare and definitely seems rather pointless nya ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ ^{[all-lowercase name pls] talk} 18:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
5. A weird stub in search of a point that no one's yet to make. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
6. On second thought, too stubby, would probably be better suited to a complete recreation. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
7. Two definitions, a link without any explanation and a "see also" does not a glossary make. Spud (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
8. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Could theoretically be missional but is not even remotely ready in its current form-Hastur! (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• Maybe move this page to a new Glossary namespace. The page is not quite missional, but these glossaries could work well to support our existing pages. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Appropriate technology | Result: Gone, reduced to atoms

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

Delete

1. Pet project from ages ago that is hopelessly off mission and has been a dead stub for two years. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
2. This isn't missional nor is this a really compelling article. It's been languishing since 2011, well over two years. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
3. I could see an alternate angle that might save the article but it is honestly just not worth the bother.-Flandres (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
4. Hopelessly off-mission. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
5. Reduce to ashes. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
6. don't think it can be saved Vorarchivist (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
7. -Hastur! (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

List of amino acids | Result: Merge/redirect (as of 10:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC))

List of amino acids (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Irrelevant to RW’s mission. The Sqrt-1 ^{talk stalk} 11:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
2. Delete as per Sqrt-1. Kiko4564 (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. We also have an article on amino acid this might be merged into. Not seeing how either is directly missional, but it's probably going to come up in many missional topics. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
2. Yeah. I support a merger. Spud (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
3. Merge would be better. Amino acid is linked from other missional pages.[8] Bongolian (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
4. Flandres (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
5. it's a quick reference from other pages. Merge Scream!! (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
6. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
7. Gunther1987 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
8. Merging might be a great idea.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 20:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
9. This seems like a wiser idea. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 21:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Goat

1. When this AfD case is decided, please ping me. I am willing to work on the final product (hopefully a merger). — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
2. just move it to a sub-page of Amino acid Scream!! (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
3. Any updates? I recommend moving it (as Scream! suggested) as a subpage of Amino acid e.g. Amino acid/List of amino acids — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hydroxychloroquine | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. this article is strongly pro-hydroxychloroquine, and given the current climate I would say it needs substantial review before we allow it in mainspace Hastur! (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
2. Axe it. It does seem highly slanted along the pro-HCQ / medical freedom avenue (Why can't I take morphine/ampheteamine for my bunion? Medical freedom!). Giving Stella Immanuel any credibility, is inappropriate because her wacky ideas. A page on hydroxychloroquine might not be unreasonable, but this is not it. Bongolian (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
3. There is not enough scientific consensus to be taking sides in such a controversial topic. The Sqrt-1 ^{talk stalk} 05:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
4. I have utterly no competence to judge the underlying controversy, and I doubt any other editor has a better foot to stand on here. But the burden of the article seems to be that 'the media hates hydroxy-whatever because the media hates Donald Trump'. Moreover, the article seems to have sprung out of nothing in all its 120,000 byte glory in a single day, which makes me suspect copyright violation by cut and paste. Real wiki articles of this length grow more organically. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 05:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

   User:AndyChrist has been working on it in his user space for a little while-Hastur! (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

   I have notified AndyChrist on their talkpage. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

5. Oh, for fuck's sake! No! We are not touting any fucking miracle cures for an incurable disease. Far, far into the future, we might be able to write with authority about how media bias and mistrust of anything associated with that fucking arsehole Trump made a bad situation much worse than it had to be. But this is not yet the time. Spud (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
6. Putting "scientific" in quotes is already highly dubious. Putting a picture of Rudy Giuliani and captioning him with "more reliable than the chief medical writer of AP" puts a first nail in the coffin. Unironically trying to demonize "the evil MSM"? That's even more dubious. A conspiracy theory about YouTube trying to "censor alternative opinions"? Not looking good. Ending with potshots at Fauci for... no real discernible reason? This thing was written by a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Proposing a delete and a warning for the user to not be an idiot and use us to distribute poorly written conspiracies again. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
7. What my very distant cousin Crow said— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 09:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
8. 🤨 Complete dangerous garbage. Also that goddamn poop emoji in a thumbnail just looks super cheap. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 14:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
9. Trying to argue that an anti-bacterial is the same as an anti-viral is... Stupid. Also, as of July 2020, this line of research has been abandoned. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

   By the way, it hasn't... at least not completely. The study Zelenko was getting the HCQ for was comparing HCQ + azithromycin vs. HCQ + doxycycline. Just throwing that out there. I personally don't believe that it has any effect other than as an antibiotic, but that wasn't how it was presented in the Henry Ford study and I was trying to put the scientific terminology into a more comprehensible form.AndyChrist (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

   Points of fact: Hydroxychloroquine is most commonly used to treat malaria, which is caused by a plasmodium infection, not bacteria. However, it has a variety of systemic effects that can counter various viruses. In particular, chloroquine was found to be very effective against SARS CoV-1 back when that was a topic of research. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

   https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19 — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

   That's nice. Is it supposed to have anything to do with the points of fact I raised? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

10. This is a load of barnacles... Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
11. Delete with extreme prejudice. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
12. Came here expecting to read something informative and got something like a hybrid pharma brochure and a Trump aide with a chip on their shoulder. 173.73.242.106 (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

    Not sure BoNs get votes but it hardly matters at this point, right?-Hastur! (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Feel free to add counterpoints if you want. I just look at the science and the science is in favor. That is what p-values mean. I honestly can't figure out what the counterargument to hydroxychloroquine is. It is a safe drug... that has been known for years... and it has studies that show that it works. As for the media, the fact that they keep mentioning remdesivir in their articles seams to be a clear indicator of their complicity. The science behind remdesivir is not nearly as convincing and it can't even be used as a preventive or outpatient drug because it has to be used with an IV . And yet somehow remdesivir is always the clear winner. If you want me to move it into a personal page, fine, but I am trying to get the word out and save peoples lives. I am sorry if that is too controversial for you. By the way, I am not a republican... I have voted consistently democratic except Gore vs. Bush where I voted for Ralph Nader, although I suspect I will vote republican this year... I am an independent. I honestly worry about the direction this country is heading. We are losing are freedoms, such as being able to get a prescription filled for HCQ, because of corporate influence. That is a relevant issue. So is the fact that we haven't had a large scale randomized trial for HCQ and the one that was attempted is no longer being pursued. AndyChrist (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
2. At any rate, the RationalWiki mission statement reads as follows:

   The RationalWiki Mission is:

   1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;

   2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;

   3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;

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

Hydroxychloroquine, claims made about it, and treatments in politics and media are obviously on mission. It's obviously a topic of current interest and importance. If the current state of the article is unsatisfactory, it should be improved rather than deleted. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Dude, at a 124000 bytes this article can't just be "improved." It needs to be deleted until something better can take its place.-Hastur! (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Goat

I have also made a draft on it. I was plannng to contrast the two, but eh. Draft:Hydroxychloroquine — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 06:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Homology | Result: Kept

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

Delete

1. Off mission. This article does nothing Wikipedia doesn't do better Hastur! (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Eh, I like it. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 06:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Hello!-Flandres (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
3. "Wikipedia does it better" is a very weak reason for delete. Spud (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

   Is having nothing to do with our mission and RationalWiki not being an encyclopedia better?-Hastur! (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

   Yes. Those are always good reasons to delete. But I don't agree with you in this case. Spud (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

4. Keep. It's missional in so far as it supports evolution pages. Bongolian (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
5. It's arguably marginal, but I'd say we should keep.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
6. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
7. Maybe expand the article a bit? It's quite short. Gunther1987 (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
8. Keep. We're not an encyclopedia, but it has a number of WhatLinksHere results that mean it's presence should probably be kept. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 10:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
9. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 10:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Rename

1. As I said in the talk page (which was ignored), the article should/could contain analogy and homology. Those are quintessential to understanding evolution, just like microevolution and macroevolution are. And the topic is on-point in regards to the mission statement.

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 10:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hinokitiol | Result: deleted

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

Delete

1. Not thrilled about supporting any given coronavirus treatment. At best this should be merged in the greater coronavirus article. Also, this isn't even really on mission as is, since it doesn't look at the subject matter in terms of whether or not it's pseudoscience Hastur! (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 06:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
3. Delete forthwith, it's a crap article. Bongolian (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC) For anyone who might not be convinced of this, most of the article is based on in vitro research, which is highly preliminary (see hierarchy of evidence), hence it insinuates that it is something that it is not. Also RW is not an encyclopedia. Purge with prejudice. Bongolian (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
4. Just because Conservapedia touts hydroxychloroquine doesn't mean we have to tout something else. Spud (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
5. Delete it. It's manure. User:Piney
6. Echoing Bongolian. All research cited is *extremely* preliminary, and this isn't the place to put this information anyways. The other Wiki has already raised concerns on the talk page that someone is making a shill test for a supplement, something which I am also suspicious of. Take this to NaturalNews or something and find out if you'll be the next colloidal silver. Soundwave106 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
7. Why are we even bothering with a vote? Kill these vessels of false hope forthwith, and with great zeal!!! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Youth Parliament Program | Result: deleted

Youth Parliament Program (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Reads like it was pulled from the organization's website Hastur! (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Bad article, almost certainly plagiarized Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
3. Already axed by Cosmikdebris. Bongolian (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• Got drafted. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 11:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Skepticon | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. As written, this article would be nicely collapsed into a single paragraph in the skepticism article. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
2. There is nothing interesting in this article. Just a few sentences of what this is, and the rest is a bunch of lame low-effort list of dates to pad out this thing. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 14:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
3. true. — Z 15:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
4. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
5. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
6. Doubtful missionality, seems like an ad. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 21:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
7. Not worthy of being an article.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 21:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
8. Not worthy of being an article or being merged into the skepticism article. A boring ad. Nuke the spam. Spud (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. What Spud said. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

   What did Spud say? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

   It'd "be fine as it is collapsed into a section in our skeptic article". — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

   But, Spud didn't say that. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 00:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

   I'm delighted that "What Spud said" seems to have taken on such positive connotations. But it's true, I didn't say that.Spud (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Apple Inc. | Result: Kept in a proprietary closet

Apple Inc. (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Off-mission Delibirda (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
2. -Hastur! (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. There's a lot of woo and shit surrounding Apple, and Apple itself is a notoriously exploitative corporation. It's missional. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Topic seems perfectly missional to me. We should actually have more corporation articles rather than less. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
3. We would do well to focus on these sorts of people more, especially now that "woke branding" is a thing and they are trying to make themselves look better.-Flandres (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Apple would in my eyes go under "Explorations of authoritarianism". A large number of their factories are located in China (which is rather authoritarian) and they are notoriously walled garden with iOS (and increasingly so with OS X as time goes by). That walled garden has caused them to stick up for the Chinese government's authoritarianism by forbidding VPN applications (which could be used to get past the Great Firewall) from being allowed in the Chinese App Store. That alone makes them missional. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. If it reads more like a fun page, why not make it a fun page, instead? Thunderclapper (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• Microsoft? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Very weak case for deletion. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'd like to hear how this is on-mission-Hastur! (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  Forbidding VPN applications in the Chinese App Store because they could break China's Great Firewall is a pretty good argument? Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  How is that bad?--Delibirda (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not fussed either way, but it's been 4-2 in favour of keep for over a week now. Time to close as keep, I think. Avida Dollars^{her again} 07:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Anarcho-fascism: It's gone now

Anarcho-fascism (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. -Hastur! (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
2. -If it had more adherents, perhaps...-Flandres (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Seems to be very obscure and under-sourced. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Delete, but expand on what little there is to discuss and debunk in the main article. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Whatever is worthwhile move into the anarchism page, but nuke the rest. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
6. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge contents into Anarchism, our section there is but a small blurb right now. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Goat

1. The page no longer resides in mainspace. — Dysk (contribs) 09:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Anarcho-syndicalism | Result: Deleted

Anarcho-syndicalism (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Too short. Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

   When can it be deleted?--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Too stubby, plus dubiously missional since it's a subgroup of Anarchism with from what I can see little that warrants it getting it's own article. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 17:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
3. socdem gang. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
4. I don't think it can be made useful. EK (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
5. cries in Kaiserreich Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Somehow, the section in the Anarchism article is longer than this. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Per section already in anarchism ShabiDOO 20:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
8. As crap now as when a drive-by one-timer created it almost exactly two years ago. Spud (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Tuxer (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
11. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
12. Ace^Moderator 21:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Noam Chomsky would not be proud of you guys. HairlessCat (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

# Merge a very short paragraph into the anarchy page ShabiDOO 19:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Merge, as Shibadoo states. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Goat

• @Shabidoo @Cosmikdebris - It already is: Anarchism#Anarcho-syndicalism. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 19:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  In that case, the stub can be deleted. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• To think I was going to suggest merging to Anarchism as tongue-in-cheek (since I believe the anarchism article is bloated enough already)... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. And we don't want it metastasizing over the rest of the wiki.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

New Zealand First | Result: Keep but trim

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

Delete

1. Not sure we need a page on a NZ political party - not really of interest to anyone Ace^Moderator 20:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. I think it makes sense to have, in the same way that the wiki tracks the Golden Dawn and so on. 71.168.104.55 (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

   NZ First is in no way comparable to Golden Dawn and secondly NZ First really isn't very interesting and doesn't lay on the extreme of any political ideology. It's mostly just a small party advocating for seniors. It may seem mission related to you but as a NZer it is a strange article to have given how much of a non-event the party is. Ace^Moderator 22:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Might have too much information on affairs not necessarily related to our mission, but overall, it's a harmless and missional article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Seems fine to me. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
4. I'm voting Keep just because they've been accused of homophobia and transphobia in the past. The article could definitely do with some trimming. Probably just one short History section would do, instead of all those different sub-sections about its time in opposition and its time as part of a coalition. . Spud (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Seems missional enough. Perhaps trim it a little to only notable incidents of crankery if they're not an extreme. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 08:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Clearly falls in the "authoritarianism" segment of the mission statement.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 16:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Goat

1. This wiki could do with less political articles, but at the same time we have articles on the republicans and democrats here in the states. If those are relevant, isn't this one?-"Shut up, Brx." 22:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

BioShock | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. not missional Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
2. agreed. its a synopsis and there is nothing to add. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
3. True. If there's anything missional about these games, it's not made clear here. Spud (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
4. "Hey it's political" is not a valid justification for having an article on this game. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Don't forget to delink from the Objectivism and Ayn Rand pages. The games aren't missional beyond perhaps a mention of their existence in those two pages, and certainly not worthy of a full article. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 14:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Agree—Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
7. -"Shut up, Brx." 15:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
8. -Flandres (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Per all. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Maybe if it was better written. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
11. Naked commercial promotion.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Goat

Can we set a official precedent here that a video game(or film, or series) having a political message is not enough to give it a dedicated article?-Flandres (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of bureaucracy and a giant list of rules. Each case involving the missionality of a particular article should be evaluated by the mob based on the stated mission of RationalWiki. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

In practice, that's the case already. But, yeah. Let each media-related article stand or fall on its own merits. Spud (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, there is nothing in the mission statements that suggests that merely because something is political it merits an article. But, a number of political subjects involving authoritarianism or anti-science from either left or right would make the cut.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. I don't think this consensus is going to change. I'll wait 24 hours before deleting it just in case there are some late comments - I'll fix the links afterward. (Unless someone else wants to do the deed earlier.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sunday school environmentalism | Result: Moved to Essay space

Sunday school environmentalism (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Too low quality and too many unsourced statements. At best it needs rewriting. Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2. I second this.HairlessCat (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
3. This wiki could do with a whole lot less poorly sourced political essays-"Shut up, Brx." 16:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

   the original author is no longer active and admitted that the term doesn't actually exist-"Shut up, Brx." 17:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

   If anything from this article should be saved, it should just be a section under environmentalism. HairlessCat (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

   This page have not recived any new votes in a while. What will we do?--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   @Delibirda Post \in the Saloon Bar that you'd like people to look at the article and vote. Keep as it is doesn't seem to be much og an option. Ask them if it should just be deleted or moved to essay space. Spud (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   @Delibirda Don't worry. Now it's 4 votes for moving to essay space, so that's what I'm going to do. Spud (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. I have linked to it fairly often. If deleted, greenwashing may be a good place to move some of the information. We probably ought also to have an article on environemntalism as a quasi-religion with sins and saints and holy sites and a code of laws. This is something I find plausible enough to at least discuss. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Reads more like an essay than an article worthy for mainspace. Suggest moving it over to the essay space "produced by RationalWiki editors." Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2. I second Cosmikdebris.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 16:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
3. I fully support the idea of moving this to essay space. And let's have no more articles the titles of which are words or phrases that the editors have just made up themselves. Spud (talk)
4. In agreement with moving this to Essayspace. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 14:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Very Serious People | Result: Deleted

Very Serious People (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Discuss

I'd have preferred just removing all the examples, since this is hardly the worst rambling political article on the site, but deleting is more expedient-"Shut up, Brx." 06:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

🤨 What's with the improper formatting? You need to follow the instructions in RationalWiki:Articles for deletion. Add the template to RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Log too, which you haven't done either. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is what the Goat section is for. Don't add a separate Discuss heading again. Spud (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI this is because Brxbrx did the process all wrong by simply creating a page and then just adding the sections. I didn't want to do all the formatting for Brxbrx initially, expecting that Brxbrx will follow proper procedure, hence I've kept this section in place. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I know. I trust you to always do what's right. Spud (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. -Remove examples. My only objection was that there was barely any deliberation. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2. - Seems missionary--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

   Very serious people only engage in missionary. Bongolian (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

3. Yes, keep.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 15:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete

1. Don't think it is valuable as we have an article for all the mentioned people anyway so just doubles up the information. Ace^Moderator 06:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2. -"Shut up, Brx." 06:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
3. I'd prefer to delete, but I'd accept removing examples. I don't find the concept particularly clear. Bongolian (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
4. As there seems to be little or no evidence that the term is used in this manner outside of RW I vote delete. Nobody is going to come here looking for a definition of a usage which does not exist.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
5. What Bob said. Spud (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
6. The concept is quite idiosyncratic and the nebulous definition has attracted all kinds of subjective additions. This article is along the lines of the "wingnuttery" and "moonbattery" categories in the amount of completely subjective editing they attract. Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
7. Not a very good article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
8. A lot of what's outlined here has spotty applicability. The terms aren't specific aside from a general critique of centrism and balance, which are already covered in other articles, and with that, you can easily use this to sweep anyone with the "Very Serious People" claim. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
9. At core, a rather silly idea, not really subject to 'debunking'. Any commentator on public matters in the USA that seeks to maintain an air of gravitas (and given the current state of things, that's a bad thing?) and tries to build consensus (and given the current state of things, that's a bad thing?) might be labelled with it. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 16:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön It's been deleted already. Spud (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

They only care about maintaining their own privilege and power. The actual consensus seems to be in favor of radical, systemic change. These shills do the exact opposite of building consensus and fighting for the people. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, in that case, the obvious thing to do is to restore it, so you can delete it again. That's the ticket. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 00:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Goat

1. I guess that this is an American term so I am not so familiar with it. Was it commonly used? Is it still commonly used in the way we suggest? Can all these descriptions of political positions and opinions really be applied to all the people on the list? If the answer to everything is "Yes" then I guess I'd be for keep.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

   I don't think it's something that the average person has heard of or uses. I think it's more like the pundit class using it against each other, and even then not much anymore. Only a few of the examples given have references that actually use the term. Bongolian (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

   Is this even a widespread term? Hadn't heard it before encountering it here. Honestly the article as it is just seems like an excuse to label whichever politicians/outlets editors don't like. An article on tone policing probably makes more sense-"Shut up, Brx." 08:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

   There are legitimate reasons to dislike the people and publications listed in the article, calling them "corporate shills" would probably get a few disapproving nods from the corporate shills here tho. — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

   Yeah, but those reasons are elaborated in the article pages or through a small note? The previous list didn't do any of it, just listed The Atlantic for instance, without any more justification. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

2. On the one hand, this page is kind of shit. On the other hand, there is a type of pundit that talks out of their ass a lot. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I gone and done it. Ace^Moderator 03:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Chunichi Shimbun | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. So this is an article about a left-leaning Japanese local newspaper. Most newspapers in the world have a political slant. There's nothing unusual about that. There should be something extra special about any newspaper that we have a page about here. And I can add that the many red links on this page include Yomiuri Shimbun and Asahi Shimbun. When I lived in Japan, I used to regularly read their English-language sister newspapers. And there was nothing very special, or even overtly political, about them. Spud (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Delete it already!--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Unworthy. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
5. It's a center-left Liberal newspaper. Why does that matter? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Goat

@Karasawa Takahiro You have to add content that is relevant to RationalWiki's mission, not just documenting what they are and what they do. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine | Result: Deleted

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Too short and has not been edited since 2017 Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Yes. Bongolian (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump-Russia connection | Result: Keep. Don't be a dick, Rob.

Trump-Russia connection (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Off-mission conspiracy theory. nobs^{Free Roger Stone!} 01:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Neither off-mission nor a conspiracy theory. This is not the right time for you to act like a nob, Rob. Spud (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
2. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Lmao Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
4. It is silver so...--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
5. As a deep state operative, I am obliged to support keeping this evil libel.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 11:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
6. Obviously on-mission. It's about the interference of an authoritarian government in the US 2016 election and the formal investigation that follows. Can hardly get more on-mission than that. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 11:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
7. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Goat

So, I'd like to point out that the US does this sort of crap to almost every nation on Earth. Also, is Rob still a Seth Rich truther? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Regressive left | Result: After 10 days, David Gerard didn't elaborate on why it should be deleted. Everyone else said, "Keep." It stays

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

Delete

1. Is there anything about this article that doesn't need an axe? Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. At worst it needs rewriting. But whatever.--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Accurate and missional take on accommodationist elements that coddle intolerant movements.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 18:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
3. Seems fine to me. Maybe if you went into more detail as to why you think it should be deleted? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

   I am forwarding David's comments from the article's talk page, and Oxy's subsequent premature deletion. I thought it was better to bring it up for AfD instead of unilaterally nuking the article. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Goat

@David Gerard Could you elaborate on it? I could try a read on the article myself, but you're the first to bring it up; Cosmikdebris's vote is phrased just like yours. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I too would like further elaboration. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Prime Minister's Questions | Result: Merged into House of Commons and made into a redirect

Prime Minister's Questions (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. It's a short stub that suggests that the topic is a "waste of time". I don't see how this is missional, and there's no good information I can glean from this. I don't think we need this. A merge suggestion is fine, but I don't see this subject fitting neatly anywhere without looking like some article chimera. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

   It would fit in House of Commons if it wasn't so uninformative. It could certainly be mentioned there, but not much point in merging this. --Annanoon (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

2. Agree.--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Inclined to agree with Annanoon. House of Commons, but as a smaller "snarky" subsection. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
2. Agreed. It's not really necessary to copy the entire Prime Minister's Questions page. But Prime Minister's Questions can certainly be turned into a redirect to House of Commons. And a short section on PMQs on the House of Commons page wouldn't do any harm. Spud (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
3. Fuck well you know warrior I hate to say it but truly was a piece of bread potatoes for defense attorney you got it yet when he gets to have to feel like a motional started the best case you can’t hear any of it and right and you testing yes I name well if it was excepted Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
4. Merge what's notable into House of Commons and make the page a redirect. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Web Bot Project | Result: Deleted

Web Bot Project (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Article with no sources and this project seems to have died out. Criticism of the thing is basically the same as all our other articles about similar subjects (like Nostradamus), so might be worth a mention somewhere but it isn't worth it's own article. Theace (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Goat

So @Jeh2ow why did you delete the page the same day the AfD was created? Why did you not archive the AfD afterward? Why did it take weeks for anyone to notice? Including me? Is there some consensus I was missing? Can people please review the page? It seems missional, albeit no sources and the project seemed to have halted. But can we get a consensus first before we go around deleting things? Thanks. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Draft:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak | Result: Deleted

Draft:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Author-requested deletion. Dino (contribs) 00:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Dino (contribs) 00:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

BreadTube | Result: Deleted

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

This article has been nominated for deletion before. See RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/BreadTube 2020.

Delete

1. While the topic sounds missional on paper, Breadtube is such a wide and ill-defined concept that it is difficult to make any sweeping statements on the topic, leaving the article doomed to be mostly just a list of channels, most of the major ones already having their own pages anyway. While some of you may criticize the article for not being critical enough on the subject, it's hard to criticize the subject as a whole since there are so many different ideologies between different Breadtube channels, and that's not even getting into the constant drama/infighting between creators and their communities due to their disagreements. I can see this maybe at most becoming a fork page that links to the creators that we have articles on, and if any creator does something missional we put in on their page. Think of it this way - we don't need a page for right-wing YouTube. Plutocow (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
2. What are the criteria to say someone's relevant part of BreadTube anyway? "He's a leftist and I like him"? GeeJayK (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
3. Before anybody rants about "oh no, creating YouTube articles is giving in to pure evil," just making articles on the absolute biggest youtubers of this bunch and calling it a day is far better than creating some ill-defined group, whose ambiguous nature will lead to ceaseless conflict about who is listed and how we define them and how we treat them. Heck, even saying "there is a united definable phenomenon that can be readily classed as BreadTube and thus we can treat them all in the same manner" appears to be a bit of a leap.-Flandres (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Wow, I edit Germany a bit, and this happens. I vote yes pretty much for the same reason as before. This page is just a collection of "Youtubers that I like". It's an ad more than anything else. The fact that some of them debate fuckheads does not make me interested in them. Some have articles, and that's fine, but this article and list does not need to be a thing. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

   I think the issue is that our article portrays Breadtubers in too positive a light. We could definitely trash on them a fair bit more, but just because its not well-written now does it warrant deletion. Kauri0.o (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

5. Youtube articles are a plague on this wiki-Hastur! (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
6. Terrible article on an ill-defined term. Christopher (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
7. Land Without Bread. Bongolian (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
8. Topic is too loosely-defined, article contains potentially-misleading editorializing that tries to paint topic as a righteous anti-altright movement when in reality it's a personal hugbox for pseudo-intellectual moonbats, topic's inherent vagueness makes page a huge editorializing magnet, and worst of all, IT'S A YOUTUBE ARTICLE. FRAG IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE! 🔥 TAKE NO PRISONERS! Furthermore, it's already been so thoroughly gutted that there's just no point in keeping this. Just casting a tiebreaking vote --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{Prototype lab} 04:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

   Kill with fire! Crash this article... with no survivors! GeeJayK (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

   @CircularReasoning Really? Personally I think there are things worth criticizing about "BreadTube", though I personally think such criticisms should be nuanced given the large number of people involved. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

   Yes, that's right, a large number of people are involved; that's what makes this topic so vague. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{Prototype lab} 18:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep

1. Provisional vote, but I think keep. I agree it is broad and hard to define. But it's not our responsibility to decide on a definition nor criteria for inclusion; we can still explain in a general sense what it is, and use RS to include some notable creators; we don't have to list everyone. There are obviously conflicting ideologies, but it is generally a far-left group of communities. We can still criticize the prevalence of extremism, sensationalism and 'opinionism'. Kauri0.o (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

   Talk:BreadTube, noting that their AFD resulted in "keep" and the article is classed as "low-importance".Kauri0.o (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

2. Keep under the condition of just tossing the entire example list. Having a strict "no example" list for this page keeps hopefully what is salvageable of this page. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

   Having examples is valuable to understanding what it's about. We definitely shouldn't list every person with 10 subscribers, but still worth listing the main people. --Annanoon (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

   Without the examples, there is even less to salvage, as all we're left with is vague statements about a vaguely defined group and the article becomes stub length without any hopes of improving. For the people who vote keep, how do you plan on improving this article? Plutocow (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

3. I do not care if it gets deleted, but I would hope that it is kept if the article would actually improve. I am not against moving it into draftspace. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
4. Kevs ^Ping! 12:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
5. I think that the bullet list of examples has always been a bad idea, and we should not be in the business of creating what are essentially subjective lists of links. There are better platforms for that. I am in favor of retaining the article as it stands today, purged of all the examples. It requires some expansion and more thoughtful analysis. We should be careful to prevent it from devolving into a puff piece. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
6. I thought we resolved this list issues months ago. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

   We resolved the issue, and then the article's editors created a new puff-piece list. It's inevitable with this article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

   If it happens, revert. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

   The problem is that the article is kind of dependent on the list, as Breadtube is essentially defined as a list of channels that are generally agreed to be Breadtube with no real traits holding them all together besides being vaguely left-wing. That's why people will continue to add lists to the article, as it is the only real way to define the term. If you have an issue with the lists, then you have a problem with the very idea of a Breadtube article. Plutocow (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

   The resolution as I remember it was to briefly summarize the most prominent/influential "breadtubers" as part of explaining the term. Every list entry beyond that was considered excessive and unnecessary. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

7. Keep, with extreme prejudice.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 15:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Goat

• I would like to express that interpreting the third point of our mission to mean we ought to write about everything political is a terrible idea-Hastur! (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• I could be wrong, but it seems awfully like this AFD vote is motivated by an emerging talk page consensus that the article should no longer be a puff piece repository for people's favourite talking heads. Better, then, to nuke it, rather than risk any serious analysis of a media ecosystem which, amongst other things, is providing plenty of batshit political fap material for idiot tankies and bored college kids LARPing as anarchist revolutionaries. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  +1 to HBC'c sentiment. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Leaving aside the rather presumptive statements of "Breadtube"'s audience demographic (I for example fall into neither of those categories), Breadtube has a number of things worth criticizing. Firstly, the most obvious point is unified talking points, which can vary from true (climate change) to completely unfounded speculation (all violence at the 2020 protests was agent provocateurs). In addition to the quality each point, the very fact that there are unified points can lead to some degree of an echo chamber effect. Secondly is the habit of several "BreadTube" communities to court tankies and other such authoritarians. Third is the apparent preference for courting far-right figures over centrists. Fourth is the way systemic racism affects who becomes a well known figure in "BreadTube". All of these points being said, I do not think we should throw up our hands (as some of have attempted to do) and say "the far-left and the far-right are equally bad and basically the same", as that stinks of an anti-intellectual approach that this wiki was founded (at least partially) to counter. In summery, I think the article should take a turn for the critical, but do not think it should be a shallow balance fallacy laden mess. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Page fulfils point 4 of the Wiki Mission.
  BreadTube is a new form of media, and the page is beginning to actually highlight how BreadTube criticizes and handles crank ideas. (Some BreadTube channels do it quite well, like Abigail Thorne's Philosophy Tube or the classic debunk-style videos of Shaun). Personal dislike of certain BreadTuber's political views are not a reason to delist and dismiss BreadTube as a relevant, critical media... anarchic? syndicate? thingy.
  Please contribute to shaping the page rather than knee-jerk motions to delete every single dang month. — FiveHundredMiles (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  That would be better accomplished by covering the individual channels, as Breadtube is too vague a term. Plutocow (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Lol, Breadtube as a critical media... Breadtube is full of garbage too and should be treated as such. Just because they criticize right-wingers doesn't make them automatically correct. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{Prototype lab} 19:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

David Graeber | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Blatantly terrible, atrociously cited, non-missional puff piece written in poorly organized, barely comprehensible English. For more, see the talk.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 14:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
2. I've tried to figure out why this article is here, and I can't. Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
3. It reads like a poorly written Wikipedia article. Nothing in the article looks missional. RationalHindu (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
4. I've actually heard an interview with this man and he makes a somewhat compelling case. That case is more compelling and insightful than this current article. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
5. I hate puff pieces. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
6. If the author turned out to be the subject, I wouldn't be surprised at all. Avida Dollars^{her again} 22:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Hi all, I wrote the article and I didn't realize it would get this much backlash. I have been made aware of making puff articles, and resolve not to do that anymore. However, it appears that the problem extends beyond that, but I'm not very good at understanding what is difficult to read about it. Can y'all expand on what I can change so that I can improve it? Thanks! Forpsionics(talk) 15:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Goat

1. This article made me glaze my eyes several minutes in. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

   I thought that I loved every article written on this site, even the stubs. This article is a definitive rejection of that notion. I could love it with Goat however.Representative Slip Represent yourself 02:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

2. @Forpsionics, the creator of the page, has written several high quality pages on sociologists. It would be helpful if s/he commented here and/or was given the chance to fix it up. Bongolian (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
3. @BongolianOh shoot! I didn't realize it was this bad. Sorry about that. I thought I had sufficiently summarized a synopsis of the books but I guess it didn't quite work out. What can I do to change it?Forpsionics (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

   @Forpsionics: You should take this up with your critics, above, as to how to improve the article sufficiently: @Summa Atheologica, @Cosmikdebris, @RationalHindu, @GrammarCommie, @DuceMoosolini, @Avida Dollars. Bongolian (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

   Hmm I'm a layperson on the subject. Is there a way to at least make the writing more engaging? I found there's a lot of assumed abstract concepts and terms to grasp that I'm clearly not the appropriate audience for. For instance, I got lost at "Graeber [...] dispels a myth that debt is a product of the establishment of currency. In fact, the conception of debt has existed well-beyond any notions of the gold standard, the dollar, or even the coin. Rather, debt has been a function of human relationships and economics throughout even what we may consider to be primitive history, in fact encompassing many human cultures throughout time." --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

4. @LeftyGreenMario: Okay, so you're saying make it understandable to an audience with zero expertise on the subject? I suppose that makes sense. I'll see what I can do to the draft. Also, I'll write a message above. Forpsionics(talk) 15:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)