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

December 2021[edit]

Ekrem İmamoğlu | Result: Goat (no consensus)[edit]

Ekrem İmamoğlu – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Article about a politician that is irrelevant to RationalWiki's mission. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
this contributes almost nothing to our mission, and I don’t think he has enough of a missional background to fix the article. Hence, delete. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Article is about a politician very much relevant to RationalWiki's mission, as he is a very big figure in Turkish opposition and anti authoritarian politics. I would say that it is a good idea to at least update and expand the article, however. Ozzyboo (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Per. Not a harmful article to have either. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 01:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Leaning toward delete, because the article doesn't seem missional. As it is, it's just his election record. I don't know much about Turkish politics though, so I'm open to keeping it if @Ozzyboo or soneone can explain to me why this guy's important/missional enough to warrant a page. Friedman (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
As it stands, I would argue that since one of RationalWiki's stated goals is to tackle authoritarianism, it would not be a bad idea to have an article on said authoritarian's main opposition leader. Ozzyboo (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Authoritarianism isn't as important as the other 3, and it has to be pretty important. As they said, they are not a PoliticsWiki and the Glenn Youngkin AFD is currently 9-5 in favor of deletion, even after efforts to improve it. Andrew5 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, this isn't that article. Whatever is being discussed about it doesn't pertain here. I couldn't care less if it was 9-5 in favor of keeping it, doesn't tie into this matter whatsoever. Plus, who exactly defines "important" in this context? I would consider refuting and documenting authoritarianism to be a very rational thing to do. Ozzyboo (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is also far lower quality. 9 references in bare links and borderline stub. It's quality is concerning. Andrew5 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I don't think the typical convention for dealing with shoddy articles is to delete them. Ozzyboo (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
It isn't. However, it generally is used when there are additional missionally concerns, there is no basis for improvement, or it's been a stub for 6+ years. Andrew5 (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Quality isn't the issue. Being a stub (or not) isn't the issue. Both these things could be fixed by editing it. The issue is missionally. I see people talking here about authoritarianism - but the acutely article makes virtually no mention of this and most certainly does not focus on it. It's more about how many votes he got and how he got elected. Conceivably an article mainly focusing on this could be written, but I'm not sure how.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I have encountered multiple AFDs on the lines of "stub for 8 years, let's delete this thing". Also, you can fix some things by editing, but you can't fix a bad base. That requires the article to be redone by scratch, which either requires deletion or a blanking for some time. Bad bases is a valid reason for deletion. Andrew5 (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The article on Turkish nationalism and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have been stubs for years as well. I haven't seen any AFDs for those yet. Deletion is a lazy choice for lazy people in this case. Ozzyboo (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The first one I called to be draftified, the second is no longer a stub. Andrew5 (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, keep and improve over delete only applies if someone wants to improve. If no one does, welp...Andrew5 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Says who? I would be more than happy to. Ozzyboo (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
If no one wants to improve, there is no reason to keep it. If you want to improve it, go right ahead and I might reconsider. Andrew5 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, if you're able to improve it, I'd definitely be willing to consider it. As it is now though... Friedman (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
And it would have to be a very significant improvement too, not just minor copyediting. Andrew5 (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Ozzyboo Are you going to expand it in the near future or not? AFD's aren't open forever,and given the narrow consensus to delete, the amount of time you have is decreasing. If you're busy, pleae state that here so we can extend it or move it to draft space. Andrew5 (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The consensus appears to be that there is no consensus, so the Goat wins and no action should be taken...aside from removing the AfD notice and closing this case. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Result?[edit]

I'm confused. How is the result "No consensus?. I see three to two for delete. "Goat" votes don't count either way.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I assume because Ozzyboo made such a case in favor of keeping, it was enough to tip the result into no consensus even though pure vote count is for delete, but if you want the actual reason talk to Cosmikdebris. Or you could open up another AFD. Cosmik wasn't biased, however, he was the nominator. Andrew5 (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ| Result: Keep[edit]

Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The article has problems with its content, sourcing and level of writing quality. Specifics: The content and sourcing of the article is woefully substandard. Virtually all scholars reject the Jesus Christ myth theory. Endeavors to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory. The article is also poorly written and organized (I concur with User:Ariel31459 who wrote: "The text is almost unreadable. The introductory paragraph ends: The short version of it all, essentially: all the evidence in the world (thus far amassed) hoping to lend plausible confirmation (or, at times, even general support) to the case for a historical Jesus leaves much to be desired. Why do we need an article for that?"[1]). And its formatting is second-rate with too much bolding. The article should have been deleted long ago. RationalWiki's main page says one of its core missions is "Documenting the full range of crank ideas". Again, the scholarly consensus is that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. The notion that Jesus Christ never existed is a crank idea. The only encyclopedia in world history to deny the historicity of Jesus was The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Moscow, 1952). Does RationalWiki want to be associated with an authoritarian regime known for its propaganda? LinuxLover (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Which Jesus is historical? The one who walked on water, got himself killed, and then got up and walked around? Or some obscure 1st century preacher whose life details were fleshed out with the actions, words and fates of other would be messiah?. "As Archibald Robertson stated in his 1946 book, Jesus: Myth Or History, at least as far as John M. Robertson was concerned, the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh-and-blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account, but rather: "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"." No wonder you are trying to stealth AfD Jesus myth theory as well because that partial version of the Jesus Myth theory is not crank...it is mainstream and you don't want to admit it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The article promotes a fringe theory, no different than Kennedy assassination theories or 9/11 conspiracy theories. Aside from that, the biggest problem with the article is its over-reliance on one source: Richard Carrier. 51 of the 227 citations in this article reference Richard Carrier, whose academic work is not respected by a majority of scholars in his field. He is generally considered a crank by others. Much of the argument for his position seems to come from his 2017 book, which despite repeated claims, there is no evidence was peer-reviewed by any relevant scholars whom Carrier did not personally seek out. At the very least, this article is unnecessary. It is bloated, and what little needs to be said on the topic can be said on the section on the page for Jesus. Friedman (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, subtle questions of historicity in antiquity are entirely analogous to absurd, baseless inventions. I appreciate that your metaphor is not elaborated on, and is meant to be taken for granted, but you're going to have to do better than arbitrarily compare [thing you don't like] to [thing everyone doesn't like]. Your objections about carrier can be considered entirely within the confines of improving the article, by adding other, more reputable sources, including ones that contradict the article's obvious intention. Like it or not, the 600 years difference between Jesus and Muhammad included substantial improvements in record keeping and other material evidence that persisted to the modern era, and one is a great deal more historical than the other. The historical method isn't so prone to the consensus-fringe dichotomy that characterizes science. There's a lot of things that will be perpetually open questions unless time travel is invented. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I would like to point out that wikipedia's Christ Myth theory mentions/cites Carrier 72 times over its 404 references and the are have far stricter requirements for reliable than we do. Ie if Carrier is reliable for wikipedia then he should be reliable for us.

I would like point out per the Jesus myth theory article "Contrary to the picture some apologists like to paint, there are non-Muslim references by people who would have been contemporary with Muhammad. The earliest is the personal notes of an unnamed monk c. 636 CE mixed in with his copying of the gospels which mentions that "many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives"[348] and in 661 CE Sebeos writes about Mụhammad and is believed to be an eyewitness to many of the events he recorded."--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
C'mon BruceGrubb, this is the kinda of thing I mean, and you know it. This is the third time you've pulled out this "Wikipedia says it 72 times" nonsense, and I've already responded to it twice, yet you keep posting it other places as if I haven't addressed it. I'm still waiting for you to address it the first time you posted it. You've pulled the same thing multiple times. If you want to address Carrier's reliability, do it on his talk page, so you don't have to repeat yourself and I don't have to repeat myself. Friedman (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I just saw the notice and replied "I said mention/cite ie mention and cite. Putting "Carrier" results in Safari saying "x of 72" for contains with the x changing each step you progress through the count. The first mention in the text body is in the "Christ myth theorists" section (2 of 72; the first is in the inbox.) I again ask how can Carrier be reliable by wikipedia standard which is much stricter than our own but not here? You have not formally addressed that question and have in fact carefully avoided it both here and on Richard Carrier's talk page.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I have replied via Carrier's talk page. Friedman (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Many of the claims in the AfD justification are overblown and unwarranted. I find it very suspicious that two accounts have literally appeared out of nowhere in the last couple of days, have overwhelmed the place with walls of text in multiple places, and are now hell bent on deleting content en masse. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 03:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Kind of weird how several accounts are recently signing up to promote the same agenda. Plutocow (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I find it rather suspicious that two editors appear almost simultaneously and attack one set of articles and one reference source. Scream!! (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Too important a subject to just ignore. If the article has to be completely rewritten, so be it. (I've always thought the "Christ" part should be dropped from the title. But that's a discussion for another day.) Spud (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
This is absolutely missional; the priority here should be improvement and finding better sources. We shouldn't just throw it all out without considering if it can change. Per Cosmikdebris, the sudden push for AFD is sus.Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 14:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Well it has been rewritten once before as it is actually shorter (I personally daughtered out I was say about a fifth there about). Also the person (Gullotta) used to "refute" Carrier stated and I quote "Suetonius describes Jesus as ‘the man who was crucified in Palestine". This appears in nowhere in Suetonius! Here is what Suetonius 'Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome.' and later (regarding Nero) "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.". There is nothing about either group's leader being "crucified in Palestine" really wrote. And the icing on this particular inaccuracy cake? It appears in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus which, and I quote, "The journal investigates the social, cultural and historical context in which Jesus lived, discusses methodological issues surrounding the reconstruction of the historical Jesus". Can you say stacked deck, even if it is published by Brill? This is why the article is the way it is - to preemptively kick this kind of nonsense in the head.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I didn't want this page to turn into a debate over Carrier's merits, but I'm not going to let you keep pulling this crap. In response to the Gullotta article, you sent me a link to Carrier's blog. That blog post includes a note saying that Gullotta made a mistake in attributing to Suetonius what should have been attributed to Lucian (who was quoted in Gullotta's paper right before Suetonius), Gullotta intends to correct it, and Carrier himself accepts this explanation. So either you didn't read the source you sent me, or you read it and are making a claim you know to be false. Further, I've pointed this out to you before on the talk page for this article, so you either didn't read what you replied to or you're just reposting that here for the crowds of people who seem to have shown up but without having been present on the talk page beforehand. You repeatedly pull this kind of crap. Friedman (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd love to see this article improved and remove some of the more fringe opinions, but I don't accept AfDs from two clear troll accounts who actually think this place gives a shit what dogshit propaganda outlets think. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Looks like Ken bullshit. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 16:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Overly reliant on a single author, but is missional and seems to have value. Essayspace it. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Essayspace per reliance on one source and might have value. Also could be worth a funsapce. Andrew5 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

There is a notice on the talk page of the article saying: "This Christianity related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Heavily built on a source that has been deemed questionable." LinuxLover (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can see there have only been two or possibly three editors who have questioned the source. All others disagree. Scream!! (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Might just add that I'm a tad suspicious of the two editors who appeared almost simultaneously with one set of articles as their focus. Not accusing but looks a bit socky or at least collaborative. Scream!! (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand why it looks suspicious, and I'd just like to say my intentions are good. I'm a frequent reader of the site, and I've always had a little list of edits I wanted to make someday, if I ever got around to making an account. However, seeing this page spurred me into making an account and making my feelings known. I find it very disturbing that such a fringe theory is condoned on the site. I doubt my explanation will change your mind on the vote, but I just wanted to explain my motivations. Friedman (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I want to see what consensus on the source is before making a vote. if it really is significantly problematic, I'd kind of be neutral, but I'd keep it if it was deemed not. For now, I'll wait. Andrew5 (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RationalWiki's main page says one of its core missions is "Documenting the full range of crank ideas". The scholarly consensus is that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. The notion that Jesus Christ never existed is a crank idea. The only encyclopedia in world history to deny the historicity of Jesus was The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Moscow, 1952). Does RationalWiki want to be associated with an authoritarian regime known for its propaganda? LinuxLover (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The Freedom From Atheism Foundation is mocking RationalWiki for its fringe view on the historicity of Jesus Christ.[2] LinuxLover (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wonder who made that entry? Scream!! (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: the title of the article is "Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ" not "Did Jesus Christ exist?". Scream!! (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a self-inflicted wound by RationalWiki. The scholarly consensus is that Jesus Christ is a historical figure. All attempts to deny the historicity of Jesus Christ have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory. When RationalWiki adopts crank views, it should expect to be mocked. As wise King Solomon wrote: "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?". LinuxLover (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I hope RationalWiki doesn't take the next step and say there is a malevolent conspiracy among scholars when it comes to the issue of the historicity of Jesus Christ? LinuxLover (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

LOL, this "Freedom from Atheism Foundation" shares the Kendoll Conservapedia "essay" spew on their Facebook feed. [3][4] That's a first, someone actually taking that shit seriously. Funny that one person replies to the second post asking if this is a parody account... tee hee... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I smell a room full of CP socks. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've changed part of the lede in for Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ to this:

"New Testament scholar Ian Howard Marshall in his I Believe in the Historical Jesus stated "[W]e shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about." laying out the range of a Historical Jesus going from "the person called Jesus really existed" to "'The description of Jesus in the Gospels corresponds to what he was actually like.'"(reference). Depending on where you are on that range the evidence goes from excellent to ridiculously bad. Ehrman (himself not a mythicist) in his 2012 book Did Jesus Exist?, complicated matters by when he summarized the views of Earl Doherty: "In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity". (Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist? (2012), Harper Collins, p. 12.) So by Bart Ehrman's definition a Jesus who existed but picked up the remains of an existing Chrestian/Christian cult or actually preached a form of Judaism that was turned in Christianity by other after his death would be a "non-historical" Jesus. And people wonder why this article is a train wreck on steroids."

Two pro historical Jesus authors and their definitions of what is historical and nonhistorical shows the real problem with the article - it has to deal with every version of Jesus along Ian Howard Marshal' huge range and even if you can show Jesus existed as a human being if you can't reasonably show Jesus actually preached Chrestian/Christian (or what ever it called itself before 44 CE) per Ehrman's then you have a "non-historical" by his definition. Never mind what if the Gospel Jesus stripped of all the supernatural is a composite character with a 1st century preacher named Jesus in the mix? Is that a Historical Jesus?

I might add that we have a "stealth" AfD for Jesus myth theory by one of our two people. Can we just combine the AfDs and then work on cleaning up the articles. Jesus myth theory is a mess but the stuff is on topic so I am not sure how to clean that thing up but being a mess is not what AfD is for.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The significantly problematic tag was added by me. Everyone seemed relatively in agreement that Carrier had multiple issues with peer review and didn't have enough goodwill behind him to make up for it. If I was too hasty with adding it, I can remove it. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 17:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you are confused. I checked the Fossil Recorder the main page of both articles. The AfD was put on "Evidence..." by LinuxLover "as of 02:56, 8 December 2021" and on Jesus myth theory by LinuxLover "as of 06:23, 8 December 2021". Your post was on the talk page "Evidence..." "as of 00:57, 7 December 2021". Posts on the talk page are fine and in fact encouraged. If is the AfD on the main Jesus myth theory page (different article) with nothing here that I am having issues with.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Barring aditional information these new accounts do not argue in the same way as Ken. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The complaints about Carrier are irrelevant. It is not that I don't want an article with this title. I just don't like this article. Has anyone who voted to keep it been able to read the damn thing? Ariel31459 (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Would need to be more concise but no point. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:4D (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Jesus myth theory| Result: Keep[edit]

Jesus myth theory – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The article has problems with its content and sourcing. Specifics: The content and sourcing of the article is woefully substandard. Virtually all scholars reject the Jesus Christ myth theory. Endeavors to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory. RationalWiki's main page says one of its core missions is "Documenting the full range of crank ideas". Again, the scholarly consensus is that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. The notion that Jesus Christ never existed is a crank idea. The only encyclopedia in world history to deny the historicity of Jesus was The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Moscow, 1952). Does RationalWiki want to be associated with an authoritarian regime known for its propaganda? LinuxLover (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Even more than Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ, this article is completely propped up by crank Richard Carrier and his fringe theory. For those interested, a debate over Carrier's reliability as a source will be happening on his talk page. Friedman (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Bongolian (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Plutocow (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Are we actually proposing a silver for deletion? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
And deprive the world of my funniest ever picture caption? No sodding way! Spud (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
—cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
As in the other case, the AfDs is coming from two clear troll accounts. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
-- Techpriest (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Nobody cares about what the Freedom From Atheism Foundation says Ken Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 16:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

RationalWiki's main page says one of its core missions is "Documenting the full range of crank ideas". Again, the scholarly consensus is that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. The notion that Jesus Christ never existed is a crank idea. The only encyclopedia in world history to deny the historicity of Jesus was The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Moscow, 1952). Does RationalWiki want to be associated with an authoritarian regime known for its propaganda? LinuxLover (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

A Rationaliki "silver article" is not a weighty award. It's not exactly a Nobel Prize. LinuxLover (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Then take it to RW:DEMOTE first, get it promoted, and maybe then you might get it deleted. Andrew5 (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

/r/detrans | Result: Overwhelming delete[edit]

/r/detrans – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This article gives unnecessary oxygen to a tiny community. /r/detrans only has 23k subscribers. Our bare minimum for even adding something to the Reddit page is 100k subscribers. All we're doing is lending unnecessary credence. There's a detransition article still in draft. Any content that could possibly be gleamed from this page should end up there (although it's by and large just "look at this bad person" nonsense). -- Techpriest (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Not notable, can't find non social media google searches on it. I also oppose a merge to a draft because then the draft may not get published. Maybe merge to Reddit. Andrew5 (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC) No objection to merging if the draft is published. Andrew5 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet criteria for inclusion on Reddit either. -- Techpriest (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Then just don't merge. If necessary, someone can independently add a sentence on this without seeing the revisions of the article. Andrew5 (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
— 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 13:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Talking points common on this community can be easily covered in the main subject page. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 15:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
A couple sentences on the Draft:Detransition draft is enough. Had the subreddit been larger, such as NoFap with 905k members, I would consider keeping. LongStylus (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
It doesn’t make the Reddit criteria and my feeling is the draft won’t wind up being published for a long time. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I think examples of detransition communities should be mentioned in Draft:Detransition. Plus, a couple of sentences shouldn't slow things down too much, and if that's not possible, just a brief mention of the subreddit suffices too. LongStylus (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Because we aren't sure if the draft is published, I'd say hold off on merging until the draft is published. Also - RW:DUPLICATE is the correct place for suggesting merges as said at the top of RW:AFD, merges here are done as an alternative to deletion. Andrew5 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Please try not to be so bureaucratic; it's very off-putting. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what's the disagreement we have; my opinion is more or less the same as yours. I did say I would support merging in Talk:/r/detrans, but I take that back; we can add up to a sentence or two about the subreddit in Draft:Detransition, which I wouldn't consider as merging since it's too small. I say we delete /r/detrans for a start and worry about the rest at Draft talk:Detransition. LongStylus (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Was going to vote no, but rereading it, the article's best content could be rewritten into maybe two sentences and have the same amount of information. No need for this to be a full mainspace article. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 17:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Of limited value and unworthy of attention here. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Article seems well intentioned but has limited relevance and several glaring typos. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
no specifics of any of the claimed transphobia, just vague claims made. the sources provided are at best he said/she said dross. one would expect a whole lot more examples to point to for such a subreddit thats seemingly loathed by so many. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

November 2021[edit]

Muhammad Amin al-Husseini | Result: Delete[edit]

Muhammad Amin al-Husseini – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Unsourced and context free mix of rumour and factual inaccuracy, to say the least AMassiveGay (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this article is completely without merit and should be speedily removed. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 04:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I stand by my belief that this is not just a bad article, but, like, the exact opposite of what we are supposed to do here.-Flandres (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Many of the delete votes are simply coming in based on the lack of content, however, we are supposed to improve over delete no matter how bad it is, unless a reasonable attempt to improve has failed. This applies no matter how bad albeit, a draftification here would be more appropriate. But judging it strictly on nationality, we'd be using such a large amount of effort improving an article that is only barely on mission. WP:TNT does not apply here, by the way. As such, this should be deleted. It can be recreated from scratch if someone can find evidence its actually missional. Andrew5 (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Christopher (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Buttered cat theory | Result: Merged with and redirected to Murphy's Law[edit]

Buttered cat theory – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

In RationalWiki:Duplicate_articles/Archive14#Merge_Buttered_cat_theory.E2.80.8E_with_Murphy.27s_Law, there was a consensus to merge, but actually finding the content to merge is limited. It probably is missional, but it doesn't have enough content to have an article. As such, it should be merged. The reason, however, as to why not to just use RW:DUPLICATE, is because it was used and didn't work out. This is the next step. Andrew5 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Merge and preserve the content from Buttered cat theory as appropriate. There is some good text in it and a couple of interesting references too. I do not feel that the complete deletion of the article and simply putting in a redirection is appropriate. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The main issue is that it would put undue weight on this, bloating the article with this one thing and making it disproportional unless everything is expanded. Andrew5 (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The content in Buttered cat theory could be compressed as most of it seems to summarize the content of the referenced Georgia Tech article. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
As of right now, all that exists is one bullet point and to not add undue weight,a full section is needed. Andrew5 (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Merged. Should we add a redirect or nah? Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 17:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I am about to do so. Andrew5 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Merge, add redirect. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Nauru | Result: Keep[edit]

Nauru – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

An unsourced stub for it's entire 9 year history. Also, it is likely not missional. Given how it's the 2nd smallest country in population, I don't see how it could advance the RW mission. That's why, IMO, the "improve over delete" doesn't apply. Now, why is a merge undesirable? Because there isn't really a good place to merge it into. That is why I think the article needs deletion. Andrew5 (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Should be improved, but the sheer financial incompetence that lead Nauru to go from one of the richest countries to one of the poorest countries, as well as colonial and environmental concerns, keeps it missional. Plutocow (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
We need to get past the point of "improve over delete", and then no one deletes. If you think it should be kept, maybe you should put the work into improving the article. I still have Tim Eyman and it's struggling. Andrew5 (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Per Andrew5, I think that this article could go more in-depth into the history of this nation; that is, if someone does the work.Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 18:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Technically it's still a country. Not every stub is bad. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Thought over it some more. I think it could potentially have a small merge with Global warming, given how it is likely to be affected by it. It could possibly be on mission, but it needs so much expansion it likely wouldn't be improved. With that being said, I am not opposed to a move to draftspace for improvement. Funspace, I'm iffy on. Those of you who think countries can't be deleted, please see Talk:Sao Tome & Principe, RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Morocco and RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Guyana. Andrew5 (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, besides being a stub, it's really not that bad of an article. It goes over the missional aspects, with the one problem being that it doesn't go into detail. It's a good opening paragraph, at least. Maybe I could improve it when I have the time/motivation, as I did with Guam, Kiribati, Timor-Leste, etc. Plutocow (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Vast right-wing conspiracy | Result: Merged with and redirect to Hillary Clinton[edit]

Vast right-wing conspiracy – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

It's just not a good article at all, being short, poorly referenced, and just not doing a good job of explaining its topic. If there's anything salvageable about this, it can be merged with Hillary Clinton. Plutocow (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
In the wake of the current "Trump really won the 2012 election" nonsense the claim of "Vast right-wing conspiracy" takes on a whole new meaning. The right-wing has been seeing vast conspiracies since the 1950s and as demonstrated through the Freedom of Information act there have been actual conspiracies - MKUltra for example. BruceGrubb (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
-Flandres (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I think this article is find as it makes fun of Hillary Clinton's silly comment. BeardOfZeus (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
That can easily be mentioned in Hillary Clinton's article. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

I'm actually really unsure about this one. Maybe it could be put into Hillary or Bill's article. I'm not sure about the missional quality though.~~ Patty Pat (yap with me) 0:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Merge with her article or Bill Clinton's article. Either way, it is too insignificant of a stub to ever be improved. Further, I had never heard of this conspiracy theory before. I highly doubt it deserves its own article for that reason. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Maybe merge with conspiracy theory, alt-right/right-wing, or Hillary Clinton's page. On its own it's a weak page. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 13:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Weak support for a merge into Hillary ~~or Bill~~ Clinton. I generally, along with most of RW, don't like merging articles just for low quality, and missionality is there. But in this case, I don't see a better option. Without going off mission, it will be really hard. May I remind that if it's closed as merge, can someone remember to link the AFD (RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Vast right-wing conspiracy) into the edit summary? American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
It's just 250-ish words. Just slotting it as a section in one of the Clintons should be enough. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this discussion going to come down to a vote on merging into one of their articles, but not deciding on which? American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Merge into Hillary's aricle with a "see also" link on Bill's page and a short blurb explaining the subject. Leave a redirect in place to Hillary's page. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I think that after 2½ weeks of discussion, there is a weak consensus to merge. Can someone get to the merging? -Andrew5 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Merged to Hillary Clinton. Check diff log. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 18:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  - Well I guess I'll just redirect the article and archive it then. Andrew5 (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Divine Revelations.info | Result: Merged into RationalWiki:Webshites[edit]

Divine Revelations.info – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

It's been a stub for it's whole 7 year history, and rated significantly problematic with 3. Also, I couldn't find too many results on a Google search, suggesting it isn't even notable enough to have a RationalWiki article. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Compress the data on this page and add it as a bullet on RationalWiki:Webshites/Religion. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Not sure about this. Parts of this could definitely go into the Pentecostal article. However, I'm thinking this could part of a new page about Neo-Charismatic Christians. Not sure though. Patty Pat (yap with me) 21:05, 3 November, 2021 (UTC)
IMO, I can't see anything from this article being added to not be undue weight, but I personally am neutral to an idea about a merge.American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

October 2021[edit]

2020 Republican Party presidential nomination | Result: Merged with and redirected to 2020 U.S. presidential election[edit]

2020 Republican Party presidential nomination – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not Missional, not notable, not even interesting. It's just "A bunch of C-listers who had no chance of beating Trump did not, in fact, beat Trump." Flandres (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Boring, useless, encyclopedic and borderline listicle. If someone wants to know more about the subject they can just Google it. GeeJayK (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is going to use this. Its relevancy is gone, and nobody is ever going to update it. Easy delete. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 17:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
BeardOfZeus (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

We have 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination, 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination and 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination. These pages are fairly decently missional in helping us cover US politicians otherwise not warranting their own pages. Opposing removal. -- Techpriest (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Those articles saw contestants who had opposition. Trump got all but one delegate in this case and Bill Weld didn’t even come close. It doesn’t need a standalone. I’m ok with merging, or with just redirection, but I oppose it getting a standalone article. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Redirect (possibly merge, this I'm neutral on) into 2020 U.S. presidential election. No need for a standalone article, but the content might be useful and its best to keep the history intact. Time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 19:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Scream!! (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm in favor of streamlining the content in this article and merging the best bits into 2020 U.S. presidential election. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
What they said. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Merge as the whole Trump won the election thing is clearly on topping. BruceGrubb (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Though I doubt anybody is going to care about this information in a few years.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Fun:George Soros | Result: CINTINUE TO BE FUNDIG AND CONTROLLED BY GEORGE SOROS (Keep)[edit]

Fun:George Soros – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

If this is not classified spam then I don't know what is. BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Funspace requirements are quite lenient, but not that lenient. This shit has no business on RationalWiki. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure, it's a reference to some troll, but it's not funny or makes any commentary. This basically gives credit to that stupid troll. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 14:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Nuke it and all similar non informational spam articles from orbit. BruceGrubb (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
(Profile) - (Spoke!) 10:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Humorless, the lot of you. (Admittedly though, it could use some polish) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
In the words of a famous radio program "Ain't funny, Mcgee," BruceGrubb (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Article, with zero subtlety, mocks everyone's favorite bogeyman, so. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 01:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Bah! Humbug! —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
There are many articles that are less funny than this one in funspace, so unless we ever want to go on a large-scale pruning, I don't think we should be deleting harmless articles in funspace. Plutocow (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh Christ, yeah we should do something about those articles as well. Its honestly shit we can better do without. BeardOfZeus (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. It is only the same phrase repeated over and over in all caps. There is nothing of value in it. BruceGrubb (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Aw, waaaahhh waaaah. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 02:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
If you vote delete GEORGE SOROS OS FUNDIG AND CONTROLLING YOU.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 12:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
It's supposed to be a reference to this glorious moment. The page was just a copy of that before I revamped it. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 14:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
If you look at the post history that glorious moment was back on 15:35, 5 February 2017 and was quickly reverted 15:46, 5 February 2017 ie it didn't even last 12 minutes. The article in question was posted 17:34, 12 February 2020 or three years later‎. By the logic (if it can be called that) I am seeing to keep this any spam-vandalism could be called a "glorious moment" and be used to fill up funspace with nonsense. Best to nip that idea in the bud now rather than have to deal with it latter. BruceGrubb (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, this is how a lot of the multi-account Nazi/alt-right/cuckoo spammers sound like when they get going on some weekends, so keep. It's making fun of them. Kntai (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
GEORGE SOROS OS FUNDIG AND CONTROLLING ME. Bongolian (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
GEORGE SOROS OS FUNDIG AND CONTROLLING MY VOTE. Knight Commander^{In Service}_To _Her ^Goatness 07:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Christopher (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Fun-space has no standards (apart from the obvious legal ones). Also - as I keep mentioning - fun-space was originally created as an area where users could "have fun - not necessarily "be funny".Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I swear to god sometimes I think there should be a minimum account age for starting afds.-Flandres (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Spam is not humour. BeardOfZeus (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Counterpoint: Category:Generators. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 03:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

“”I'm Judy, and I am about 53 years ᧐ld. grew up in Los Angeles. Things I liek:, origami, and I like napping! But I also sorta like,not really much else. [http://gieäb

.tumblr.cn Free Steam Codes For Spore Demo]

—Bongolian (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Music (film) | Result: Keep[edit]

Draft:Music (film) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

We don't need an article on every offensive film ever. Nobody will care about this movie by next year (hell, nobody cares about this movie by now). Yes, it has a terrible portrayal of autism but it's quite tame compared to the massive amount of actually hateful and/or offensive stuff out there. 主要行事月 (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Never heard of it before + don't care. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 12:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
We don’t need an article on this. Even if we did, there’s nothing worth keeping in the draft as it currently stands, might as well start from scratch. Christopher (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:TNT. I'm ok with that, if there is another draft being proposed. Otherwise, no, TNT only works when something is ready.Andrew5 (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Needs tone adjustment as it reads like it's emotionally charged, but otherwise I have no problem with it. It's still in the draft phase anyway. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Has a Wikipedia article, won awards, notable. Just because we don't need it, doesn't mean we can't have it. No harm in keeping it, especially as a draft. Andrew5 (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
To play devil's advocate, The "awards" in question were from the Golden Raspberries, which are supposed to be tongue-in-cheek Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 14:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a draft. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Surprise!-Flandres (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
We shouldn't nuke Drafts just for being Drafts. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 14:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Could use a few edit, tonal shifts, refs, etc. but I think it's still a decently important article, especially considering how Sia herself treated the whole situation. As an autistic person myself I think we should talk about instances of ableism such as this. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 15:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Really needs to change its tone, but feels on mission and has some promising material and some good things to say. If it doesn't see revisions and stays like this then maybe a deletion is necessary, but I'm assuming that it's still like this because of draft status. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 15:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
That's not going to happen. The article has not been edited since May, and the author (whom I presume is the only one really interested in this subject) is no longer active on the site. It'll just sit in draftspace indefinitely until it gets deleted sooner or later. 主要行事月 (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
First of all, having an extra article in draft space doesn't do any harm. Second of all, improve over delete.Andrew5 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
But who will improve it? I doubt anyone here cares much about or is familiar with the movie, and it's already lost any relevance it had. We can say "improve over delete" all we want, but ultimately someone has to do the improving, and that seems increasingly unlikely as things stand right now. 主要行事月 (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The onus should be on you, to prove it’s either unmissional or to prove it can’t be expanded. I’m going to be working on Tim Eyman and I know nothing about it so I can’t really help. Also, what’s wrong with having an abandoned draft. If that was the case, plenty of other drafts, including Wikipedia drafts like wp:Draft:Tropical Low 11U (2018) would be deleted Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a crappy draft, but still a draft nonetheless. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Plutocow (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Not sure if this is missional enough to keep, but definitely needs tone adjustment. Knight Commander^{In Service}_To _Her ^Goatness 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Fix over delete is always the answer.Andrew5 (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Fun:Michelle Obama's arms | Result: Keep[edit]

Fun:Michelle Obama's arms – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not at all notable.It's an outdated page. BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

It's funspace. Doesn't need to be notable. Knight Commander^{In Service}_To _Her ^Goatness 00:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah but it's not even funny. Plus the funspace should AT LEAST be a tiny bit notable or we should have the right to make any sort of crap under the funspace. BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Funny is subjective. I find that this one tickles my humeur nerves quite pleasurably. Knight Commander^{In Service}_To _Her ^Goatness 00:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Knight Commander What about my second comment? funspace should AT LEAST be a tiny bit notable or we should have the right to make any sort of crap under the funspace. BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
It's notable insofar as ridiculing the bias of conservative media. Fox News and other idiots were making huge noise about Michelle Obama revealing her arms back in the day. This article is here to ridicule that.

I'm also as a rule staunchly against deleting funspace stuff. Unless it's extremely offensive, which this is not. Knight Commander^{In Service}_To _Her ^Goatness 00:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Knight Commander So is allowed to be funspace and what SHOULDN'T be funspace? BeardOfZeus (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I can't quite comprehend that sentence of yours unfortunately. Knight Commander^{In Service}_To _Her ^Goatness 01:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Knight Commander Sorry for my bad Engleesh. So what should be allowed to be in funspace and what SHOULDN'T be allowed in funspace? BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Basically anything that isn't as offensive as to violate the community standards or just pure trolling. People have disagreed with this policy of mine before, but it's my policy and I stand with it.

Regardless, you're losing this fight by a landslide. Even if you'd convince me here after titanic effort, you'd be unlikely to reach a majority by solely concentrating on convincing me. I recommend you find a different approach.

And stop pinging me please. That's annoying me and causing a knee jerk reaction in me to disagree with you even more so. Knight Commander^{In Service}_To _Her ^Goatness 00:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Knight Commander Sorry mate for sounding rude, you have the right to your opinion. I will give it up trying to delete fun space pages for now. This will be the last time I will ping you, just want you to see my apology. BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I see these edits the same way as you allegedly see mine (without me pinging you). By checking recent edits and clicking on the articles/talkpages. That said, I accept your apology. Godspeed and happy editing! Knight Commander^{In Service}_To _Her ^Goatness 00:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
-Flandres (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep, but promote it to lose it's bronze. It doesn't deserve it. Andrew5 (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
No objection to promoting. I don't think any funspace articles should have brainstars. Knight Commander^{In Service}_To _Her ^Goatness 00:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
This parodies the "Michelle Obama manufactured sleeveless dress 'controversy'" of 2009. This article IMHO's a bit amusing if you were there, as Obama's bare arms got a ridiculous amount of media coverage for a short period of time. Some sample articles from that time for your reference: [5][6][7][8][9][10] Note that "bare arms" was not as controversial as the articles made it appeared, IMHO. Sure, the "Thanks Obama!" crowd typing green ink in the online newspaper commentary sections hated the sleeveless dress for various manufactured reasons. It probably wasn't quite as known at the time that due to reasons the Obamas would be hated on by this lot for practically everything. Nobody on the other side cared. This shares some "manufactured controversy" elements ala Obama citizenship denial, flag lapels, and attempts to make Dijon mustard and arugula lettuce "elite" for some reason. I do agree with promoting away from bronze, though. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Funspace that mocks the obsessive weirdos on social media. Pretty appropriate for RationalWiki. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 00:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Plutocow (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
If the republicans get to be upset over Obama's tan suit, Michelle Obama's arms are a fun sideshow. It's funspace, get a funny bone. -- Techpriest (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep. It's not mocking her, as noted above. Kntai (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Irrationality | Result: Redirected to Rationality[edit]

Irrationality – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

You tell us to merge, but what is there to merge? This article belongs in the trash imo. Senioritas (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
~~It really says nothing.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)~~ Move to below.
Irrationality is when you think without rationality. Wow, thanks, article. I could never have guessed that! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Literally nothing to it. Anyone with an understanding of 'rationality' could guess what 'irrationality' is. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 13:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Merge with the article on rationality, create a new subsection and then copy & paste the content of the article there. Afterward, use the hyperlink Irrationality as a redirect. This afd was made since this article has been a stub for a decade, will probably never be improved upon and also WP:DUE. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 10:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC) (Edit: 19:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC))
Looks like a prime candidate to turn into a fork page. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 13:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Other than rationality, I don’t see what you’d link it to. There are other uses of the word rational and irrational (most notably in mathematics), but we don’t have articles on those things. Christopher (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Christopher There's Innumeracy. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 13:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Nothing to merge. Redirect to rationality. Christopher (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is appaling. Just redirect to rationality and call it a day. GeeJayK (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Redirect with or without merge to rationality, (I’ll support which ever option is more popular so we don’t have to deal with a no consensus limbo), so we don't have to deal with redlinks.Andrew5 (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Rationality with a subheading on that article explaining what Irrationality is. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
-Flandres (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
(Assume my vote is the same as the most popular suggestion) Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
This should have been part of the Rationality article to begin with. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I think we could, eventually, have a separate article on irrationality; I certainly don’t think we keep this irrationality article separate as it currently stands. For now, a redirect into the rationality article seems the best option. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 15:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Merge/redirect is fairly split between a redirect without a merge and with. While it is 6-2 with redirect over delete (0 for keep),3 support no merge, 2 support a merge, and 1 supports a fork page. How will we get all that sorted out? Andrew5 (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
If there's no clear consensus, then the "Goat" wins and we do nothing. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Let's be honest here, there is still a consensus since it's 3, 2, 1, etc. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 13:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The divide is between a total delete, redirect without merge and redirect with merge, so the discussion ought to be changed.Andrew5 (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

New vote on whether to merge or redirect[edit]

Since Merge/Redirect won but there's no consensus in favor of either option, let's finally settle this for once and for all. Plutocow (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Rationality[edit]

No need to merge, nothing valuable, and if someone really wants to merge, the history is there so they can. Andrew5 (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Theres nothing to merge. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Seirously, what is there to merge? Irrationality is not being rational? Thank you, Captain Obvious. BruceGrubb (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Nothing to merge. GeeJayK (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This vote is completely unnecessary, use some common sense. Christopher (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Heck, even back in 2011 there was debate as to what purpose the article even had. BruceGrubb (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Maybe there's an irrational attachment to descriptions of irrationality, no matter how short and half-baked the descriptions. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Irrational descriptions of irrationality. Got to love the internet. BruceGrubb (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge with Rationality[edit]

(Profile) - (Spoke!) 21:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Of course I voted here. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
You people better re-write the subsection as if fully merged it would be fairly awful. Senioritas (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Three Arrows | Result: Deleted[edit]

Three Arrows – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

It's a YouTube stub that's pretty much going nowhere, It's pretty much a puff piece and should've been a part of the great YouTube purge. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 17:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Another YouTube article about a channel no one cares about. GeeJayK (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
it's a good channel and I care about it. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 01:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Boring filler.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
it's a good channel. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 01:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this one evaded the Great YouTube Purge. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it survived for being undiscovered. Andrew5 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Youtube. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Keep for the time being, the channel is inactive but it covers debunking pseudo-history. As for no one caring, I suppose if you didn't use YouTube or Twitter that would be true, but meh, a resource is a resource. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Short article doesn't mean delete. This guy is like Shaun; the YouTuber is a good resource, and he has a healthy amount of subscribers and views despite being an inactive channel. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 01:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not sure that needs an article, but I won't go through the trouble of AFD'ing it.Andrew5 (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Normally talk pages aren't deleted, but since this just says {{person}}, would it possibly be deleted if the article is? Andrew5 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
No. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Y'all are just taking a cursory glance and deciding delete because it's a small article and only because it's YouTube. The content the YouTuber makes can make for a really good resource for our articles. Just look at his uploads. For instance, his video "Fox News: How To Whitewash an Atrocity" can be used as a starting material for Blackwater which I've actually used the links from that video to supplement the Blackwater article. It's not "boring", it's actually quite engaging, and the video itself has a plethora of resources to share. Why the hell would you want to saw off potential material for the wiki just because it's on a medium you don't like? The article is small (and why call it a "puffpiece", like, should we make up criticism for this guy if we can't find serious criticism?), so what? Just leave it if you can't find time to expand it. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 01:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Henry Lee Lucas | Result: Keep[edit]

Henry Lee Lucas – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Most likely doesn't fit Rationalwiki's mission. ^{— Unsigned, by: Patty Pat / talk / contribs}
agree. not the best of articles either AMassiveGay (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Stubby and barely on mission.Andrew5 (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Actually a pretty good take on the problems inherent with our current justice system.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 13:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
An amusing anecdote. -- Techpriest (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
It could do with some expansion but, unless I am missing something it is on topic. BruceGrubb (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Almost on mission - see SA's vote above. Scream!! (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
how is it missional? there isnt anything about this persons crimes that is. his string of false confessions might warrant a mention elsewhere, but it doesnt justify this article, expanding on his crimes adds little more than lurid true crime tabloid journalism AMassiveGay (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Will you expand the article? Andrew5 (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it's on-mission. (Also, frankly, TIL) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This one could use some expansion and cleanup but it's definitely on-mission. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
It has a good point and is a decently amusing story. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

False confession might be a missional topic for an article, but that's currently a redirect to confabulation (false memory). --Annanoon (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems like a sloppy redirecting, as false confession often happens without false memory. The text in this article is fairly short and could be one case to include in such an article. Another case comes to mind as it's the most well-known in Sweden: Sture Bergwall. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Redirect deleted by Christopher at 15:46. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Just curiosity: does it cost us anything to keep the articles? Bearing in mind that (I believe) the article will still be on our server even though not on view. What about starting (another!) space, like fun and draft, called "Deleted"? Scream!! (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Since most RW users are sysops, they can see it if they want to. But that's an ok idea.Andrew5 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

September 2021[edit]

Critics of the historicity of Jesus | Result: Moved to essayspace[edit]

Critics of the historicity of Jesus – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This is a long list of Wikipedia articles that does not advance our mission. Leaving it up just invites potential inaccuracy if not outright trolling Hastur! (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
15 times. I asked user Dbz at least 15 times on the talk page why is this listicle missional. He didn't answer me. Granted, Bongolian gave an answer but I personally found it unconvincing. Most of the names are a bunch of utterly, literal nobodies; many of them are so irrelevant they don't even have an article on Wikipedia. Even among those with a Wikipedia article there are many of them who aren't even historians or whatever. Article lists lawyers, "independent scholars", bloggers, journalists, linguists, etc. Sources include motherfucking Medium (although a considerable part of the names don't even have a source). Also, the very definition of a "critic of the historicity of Jesus" is iffy. For instance, it includes authors that belive that "Despite many other flaws, the gospels support a rounded figure and a historical Jesus certainly existed". Guess we can add almost every single intelectual (even most Christian historians and intelectuals) since the XIX century then? Maybe Dbz's theory ain't fringe after all! This happens to be one of our worst listicles. And that's quite a lot. The fact that not even the author knows why the article is missional is just the icing of the cake. GeeJayK (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Long, rambling, confusing, and a listicle. I hate it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 11:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
there is an article on the historicity of jesus. why is this even necessary? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Rambling, confusing listicle that doesn't really advance the mission. Added to that, the great majority of these names are taken from existing listicles on other websites, including Wikipedia and tumblr; we don't need local duplicates of listicles others have already made. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 15:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Dbz is a sysop and can move it to essayspace themselves if they want to. Christopher (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
On second thought, no. Nuke it from orbit. Borderline unreadable. Someone can recreate it compared to the other listicle, but as is, no. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

This article/listicle is related to the "Question of the historicity of Jesus" which is a rambling, confusing topic indeed, because many Christ devotees are "Biblical Scholars" who are incapable of addressing this topic in a rational manner. Also this article/listicle is useful for presenting how Wikipedia goes off the rails and falls flat on its face and then is unable to "right the ship" when the modern consensus is malformed and thus no longer citable as reliable. Something Wikipedia never expected to ever occur and thus is unable to deal with. RW should be presenting how and why this academic train-wreck is occurring and how and why Wikipedia is failing. --Dbz (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
If this is allowed to exist on mainspace, so does this article. Might as well make an AfD for every listicles on here and there are dozens. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
there should afd on every listicle. they are dogshit AMassiveGay (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I actually thought about mentioning this other listicle on my vote. Despite all its flaws it tries to show how the creationist intellectuals are far less relevant, even as a gish gallop, than people on Conservapedia think. GeeJayK (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Clearly a devoted labor of research and writing. Keep it. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 14:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the stupid question, but how does this make the article more suitable for the main space? I believe your vote would be more coherent on the merge section. GeeJayK (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't make the article good. We've deleted / moved some huge effort stuff. Remember the obsession with sub sub sub anarchist schools? This strikes me as similar bordering on obsessive efforts that result on work that neglects the value of brevity in favor of excessively thorough comprehensiveness. Maybe I don't get it. It's evident dbz finds this interesting but this article is just me scrolling through this completely bored at opinions of people I don't care about regarding a subject that's not the most interesting thing in the world, probably up for disagreement). I mean economics bores me way more in general and the article on the mess that is the 2008 recession is far more followable. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 16:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

~~essayspace it. -- Techpriest (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)~~ Changed my vote. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel bad deleting something someone took a gigantanormous amount of time editing. Either Essayspace or be it its own article under "Rationalwiki:Webshites" since it could work well there. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 11:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I vote to essayspace it, just because of the fact that I don't want someone's work to completely go away. DELETE ANY REDIRECTS FROM MAINSPACE. Andrew5 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
To RationalWiki:Webshites. Senioritas (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This thing is so well sourced I can´t stand the thought of it being deleted.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 14:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Joining the growing essayspace chorus.-Flandres (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Article always struck me as a bloated pet project by a single-issue contributor and finally people are gonna vet this thing. This isn't easy to vet since it's so bloated. Consign this unsightly (and no offense but also extremely boring) cruft to essayspace. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 16:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
As noted in Goat: Essayspace. Bongolian (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
178.198.8.40 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Inclined towards essayspace as well. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
essayspace preferably with a heavy cleanup and streamlining.BruceGrubb (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks like someone's notes or bibliography. I oppose deletion, but would be better as some sort of essayspace or draft or appendix or userspace or some other type of note. The historicity of Jesus is a very complex topic (meaningless, irrelevant, yet a matter of passionate debate) that it seems nobody can write about in a simple manner. So I have sympathy for anyone trying to kick these ideas into shape - the coverage here on RW is not the best but deleting this will not help (unless the plan is drive away everyone writing on historicity). A list like this isn't the best way of covering the issue, but it's a step on the way, and part of being a Wiki is not deleting intermediate steps just because they're not finished. --Annanoon (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I like the idea of it as an appendix. You are correct that the historicity of Jesus is a very complex topic and trying to get a handle on it is the main function of the Christ myth theory article showing that what the very mean of "Mythical" (and therefore its counterpoint "historical") varies between experts with some falling in a "historical" camp. As for why we need this somewhere take a look at the way too long "new topic" piece on Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ. BruceGrubb (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Related to Category:People whose existence is disputed and originally inspired by René Salm's Talk:Christ myth theory/Citations --Dbz (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I support moving to essayspace. Spud (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Take it over to essay space. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

If this gets deleted, @Dbz should consider putting it up in Essayspace. Bongolian (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if people actually reviewed the article and its sources... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
It would be nice if you didn't whine because you're losing the poll. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 15:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Do us all a favor and shut your trap. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I like how the article begins with a weird color legend using two colors for one viewpoint (?? Why???) but then goes on to incldue pinks, cyans, tans, maroons, reds with a sliver gradient of yellow, and rainbows? What the hell?? --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 16:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Even pre-supposing the thesis, the article itself is kind of shit at actually conveying said thesis. Hence my vote to delete, as well as my reasoning for said vote. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete would be my second choice too. I have no idea what the article is arguing. It just vomits at me a bunch of quotes and a weird legend that doesn't even cover all the bunch of random colors. What even is the end game of this? I imagine there is some application on arguing why or how Jesus Jesus'd and if he's a historical figure or not but does this subject really need so much attention to get this amount of information? Jesus myth theory also suffers from being a gigantic article which is also another laser focus of dbz and that article is also, no offense, not an easy thing to read either. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario!
Rather than arguing anything, it seems to be the sort of bibliography you create when doing research on a complex topic. Until we have really good coverage of the historicity debate in proper articles, it should stay (in some place) for that very reason. --Annanoon (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the article is well-source. At beast, it has many sources (though many names don't have sources). Among the sources you have Medium links, blog links, YouTube videos, at least one pseudohistory promoter, Richard Carrier, books written in the XIXth century or in the first decades of the XXth century...
Users here keep mentioning Medium, but in its defense, it is a generally far more reliable source than say, Tumblr as it is heavily moderated. It is good for opinions, and occasionally, it is good documentation that could be useful for RationalWiki. My main concern are the blog links, and potentially, the Youtube links if they are from pseudo-intellectual smucks like Thought slime, Contrapoints or Vaush. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 16:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't know about the tumblr "source". This is just... embarrasing, to say the least. GeeJayK (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The Xenogender article had plenty of these until I decided to scrub them all off, sick shit in all honesty. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 16:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I encourage people to look at Jesus myth theory too. Hideously bloated and suffers from the same overreliance on opinions on never ending tons and tons of scholars. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario!
This article (as well as the one you've mentioned) remind me of when I read The Da Vinci Code some 15 years ago. In one scene, Langdon shows to his publisher a hefty list of people that agree with him about the Da Vinci Code, thus "proving" that his theory is not fringe. I feel like Dbz is doing the same with these articles. GeeJayK (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Professor Robert Langdon is a fictional character meaning his "hefty list of people" is likely a made up fiction just like all the sources at the back of Crichton's Andromeda Strain. By contrast the sources at Jesus myth theory are real piece written by real people. The total non sequitur of comparing Robert Langdon to any of those who step back and think about it should be obvious. That said a lot of what is in Jesus myth theory does need to be daughtered out as the article way is too long. BruceGrubb (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I think you didn't understand my point, Bruce. GeeJayK (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

…one pseudohistory promoter, Richard Carrier… —User:GeeJayK (revision oldid=2362820)

I think we all get the point that you would like it if everyone drank the Kool-Aid of "TRUTH!". --Dbz (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Oxymoron | Result: Keep[edit]

Oxymoron – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Troll magnet as a fabulist sycophant who made themselves plenty of enemies here and outside named themselves after an extinct feline, so it kind of rhymes with this article's name. And the article itself is a stub for a decade, it has no redeeming quality whatsoever to keep. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 11:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I should note that the trolls use it frequently as a redirect page, they redirect the page to user:Oxyaena, but if it was the only issue I wouldn't care that much, but the article itself is dross. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 11:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't know it was THAT bad, so imo.

Senioritas (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Being a troll magnet is non issue, since trolls can be stopped by protecting the page. This one is such a sad stub of a terrible article though that there's no point in keeping it. Knight Commander^{In Service}_To _Her ^Goatness 11:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
~~Only agreeing with the above by KC. Kntai (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)~~

Withdrawing my Delete vote, given how the Keeps seem invested in making the article better. Kntai (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Its not that much of a troll magnet, and even if it was it could be protected, but the article is very low quality. Christopher (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Christopher See below. Poor quality is not a reason for deletion, but expansion.Andrew5 (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

~~Per Christopher. If kept, please move to draftspace. Andrew5 (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)~~ Moving to keep per GrammarCommie below. Andrew5 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Long-term stub, no references, and what’s there is low quality. If it wouldn’t be easier to start from scratch, it’s only because there’s so little to clear out. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 13:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Even the pronunciation guide is wrong per Merriam-Webster[11] so it's very hard to see what's worth saving. It might seem on-mission but if so, what should it say? --Annanoon (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Nothing worth keeping here. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Article has no content. Hard to see it become anything other than an endless list of examples and in case it isn't known, I hate those. Maybe redirect any redlinks created by this deletion to articles like cognitive dissonance-Hastur! (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

On mission, needs a touch up, being a troll magnet is not a reason for deletion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Come the fuck on. This assassination attempt is asinine. Blatantly on-mission, even if it's slightly stubby. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Being a troll magnet isn't grounds for deletion. Protection sure, but not deletion. Otherwise, we'd have deleted pages for, e.g., Biden or Hillary a long time ago. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Article is bad, but not irredeemable. GeeJayK (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Per GeeJayK, GrammarCommie. Short articles that are missional require expansion, deletion is not the answer. However, I am not opposed to a wp:WP:TNT method. (Delete and start from scratch). Andrew5 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
People ought to stop voting to delete pages that merely need expansion.--April ^Chat? 00:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
What April said.-Flandres (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
A stub but that's no reason to delete. Why not expand it instead.Scream!! (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
It should be protected to stop trolls though. Plutocow (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Missional BeardOfZeus (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Changed vote in hopes there will be expansion. Kntai (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Bongolian (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

As I'm ineligible for any votes at all but very ticked off at your shenanigans: for fuck's sake. Thanks for at least teaching me what said long-gone editor's username was referring to, but this is absolute garbage and sterno-level flaming. Go find another bridge. Kntai (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
No one’s ineligible to vote in AfDs. Christopher (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Good to know. Kntai (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not flaming, it's my second afd on here. You should review the page's fossil record. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 11:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I see your point with this one. Kntai (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Or, nah, the uselessness of the article for sure, but emegerding why it shouldn't be here in peak fabulist way, no. Kntai (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Just gonna add that I'm surprised nobody bothered to do some research to include a basic etymology section. Senioritas (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but "vandals liked to redirect this article to Oxy's userpage" has to be the dumbest reason for an AfD I've ever read. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Never nominate articles for deletion due to vandalism or trolling. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
It's a stub too, and one that has been stuck being a stub for a decade. As I said: It is irredeemable. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 12:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not necessarily irredeemable. I agree that it would be missional, but in its current shape it's an embarrassment to our mission. Even some of the examples provided are just bad. Needs a complete rewrite at least, and until someone's willing to make the effort, it needs to have everything after the second sentence (except maybe the "See Also" part, which has much better examples than the bread text) wiped and be turned into a draft. Or just nuked from orbit. Knight Commander^{In Service}_To _Her ^Goatness 13:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@TransChicken Reason for deletion "Troll magnet as a fabulist sycophant who made themselves plenty of enemies here and outside named themselves after an extinct feline, so it kind of rhymes with this article's name. And the article itself is a stub for a decade, it has no redeeming quality whatsoever to keep." Over half of that reason is "troll magnet" with the stub part thrown in as an afterthought. @Knight Commander I already put in some effort, though it would be nice if those complaining about the article's state also contributed. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
'Stub' is never a legitimate reason to delete anything. This is not how wikis work. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 14:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
well, this is weird since many articles here got deleted on the premise that they were not good enough. What happened to articles on some Youtubers like Keemstar and Count Dankula? They definitely were missional, but they were deleted because everyone deemed them not good enough. And don't forget to vote. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 15:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
What potential does this article have? Oxymorons in general don't seem to be missional (where do things like deafening silence, original copy, etc. fit?), so the relevance is only as the concept applies to already-missional things. That leaves things like creation science, but what's to say that wouldn't fit better in the article we already have? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 21:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Logic. The main problem perhaps is the fact that the article covers only the linguistic aspects of an oxymoron, which aren't very missional, but not the logical aspects. GeeJayK (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@GeeJayK I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the logical aspects of oxymoron; it seems to me that oxymoron is largely tied up with linguistics. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 13:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@GeeJayK In natural language, oxymorons are grammatical and unproblematic. Oxymoron’s are formed by juxtaposing two mutually contradictory predicates e.g. (Serene’s example) ‘original copy’. Predicates are: nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs. Predicates are predicated of objects. For instance: ‘original copy’ occurs in sentences such as ‘this is the original copy’, or ‘an original copy’, where the italics signify the object, or subject, that the predicates are predicated of (in this case ‘an’ and ‘this’ both signify objects). The sentences formed by predicates are either true or false of a given object; this is where pronouns come into the picture. Pronouns: be they masculine, feminine, neuter, or epicine (viz. non-binary)—are the objects of which predicates are either true or false. Pronouns are signified in first-order logic by variables e.g. ‘x’, ‘y’, ‘z’, …etc. Thus, in first-order logic, predicates are predicated of variables, for instance ‘Fx’ where ‘F’ signifies a predicate and ‘x’ signifies a variable. Therefore, to construct an oxymoron in first-order logic (viz. in scientific language), would require predicating two contradictory properties of the same object, that is, the same variable. Hence, with the example ‘an original copy’, is paraphrased into FOL as ‘(Ox . ~Ox), where ‘O’ shall be interpreted as ‘is original’, ‘x’ as the object in question, ‘.’ as conjunction, and ‘~’ as negation; I have paraphrased the original sentence in this way, since relative to the concept ‘original’, a copy is, by definition, not an original, and is thus represented by the negation of the predicate ‘O’. However, the formula formed ‘(Ox . ~Ox)’ violates the Law of Noncontradiction: the formula is invalid, since no object in the domain can satisfy it. It is literally impossible for something to be both ‘p and not p’. Thus we may represent this contradiction as ‘Ox . ~Ox ⊢ ⊥’ (which means this formula implies absolute falsehood). So, oxymorons are paraphrased into scientific language as invalid formulae.

Oxymorons are pervasive. We will continue to come across oxymorons on our website, and we will continue to interpret them so as to make sense of them, and so as to incorporate them into the scientific lexicon of our articles. Moreover, if we are interpreting (or for those of us who are translating) a given interlocutors sentences into scientific language, we ought to interpret our interlocutors in a way that preserves the logical laws e.g. the Law of noncontradiction. For example, if our interlocutors appears to hold the sentence “an original copy” as true (a sentence which is absurd once paraphrased into scientific language), then the apparent “problem” is more likely to be the result of an uncharitable interpretation, than our interlocutors actually being irrational.

Relative to scientific language, Oxymorons are absurd; relative to ordinary language, as figures of speech, they are flexible enough to avoid absurdity and maintain important pragmatic functions. To use an engineering metaphor: it is only when Oxymorons are employed in science that we become aware of their constative weakness, in response to the burden of rationality and rigour. Only in ordinary language, if oxymorons are taken literally, does absurdity arise; people forget that ordinary language is primarily a figurative artform (as opposed to literal). Absurd or not—in both cases—oxymorons remain meaningful and pragmatically indispensable. Leucippus^{Sapere aude} 17:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Even the keeps seem to agree it's low quality. Would moving to be a possible comprimise? Or would that require another discussion. Andrew5 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm cool with the idea. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 13:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a bad stub that requires a substantial re-write. Since it’s a stub, I don’t see the problem with deleting it: If someone wants to re-write it, all they have to do is recreate the article with their desired amendments. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 22:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
What you're saying is a WP:TNT like method. I wouldn't be opposed to it in this case, but I'd like to see what is drafted before it is set. Stuff, both here and on WP, gets abandoned. I've seen it on both sites. Andrew5 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Xenogender | Result: Keep[edit]

Xenogender – (View AfD)

This article has been requested to be deleted before. See here, here, and here for those discussions.

Delete[edit]

It's been over six months and the article hasn't improved at all. Yes, a couple of the more explicitly transmedicalist sources were removed, but none of the arguments or content in the article has fundamentally changed. Formerly just a redirect to a section of the Nonbinary article as a result of a previous AFD, one person with a transmedicalist agenda recreated this article. No, my problem is not with the concept of having a Xenogender article. If we had an article on the Nation of Islam that was composed of white supremicist talking points, or even an article on Blaire White that was composed of TERF talking points, nobody would accept that, but because this article is composed of transmedicalism, which is bigotry directed primarily towards nonbinary people, a lot more of you are willing to let that slide. Currently, the article contains a section that is very coddling towards autistic people and promotes gender not being a social construct, which is a TERF talking point, contains a section "Critical theory woo" which does not even try to make an argument, bizarrely tries to equate Xenogender people to TERFs (which is a bad comparison even if you don't recognize them, since you are comparing outright bigots to people who just believe in something bizarre but not hateful), and suggests that the only valid trans people are ones with brain scans that "prove" they are trans (that was less apparent due to an edit after the last AFD, but the implication is still there). And before the inevitable "Why don't you improve the article instead of deleting it", the problem is you can't improve the article without at the very least removing large sections of "content", something I tried to do earlier but was shot down. I would be okay with just redirecting it to the section in Nonbinary (which was the case for five years prior to June 2020) and do some expansion of said section but the article as it stands should just burn. Plutocow (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Horrid, not worth keeping. Perhaps do a WP:TNT and re-write the whole article from scratch, but as it stands this article is humiliating. Senioritas (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose a WP:TNT, but the problem is, no one may create a new article. I only support it if there is a draft, ready to be published, once this is deleted. Andrew5 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is not worth the effort of keeping it. The topic in question, so called “xenogender”: is so trivially pseudoscientific (the brainchild of Tumblr users ffs), that it shouldn’t merit the effort of a thorough sceptical analysis, all that is required is dismissal. In addition, this article is dispensable: it plays no significant role in supporting or contributing to our best articles. Moreover the majority of editors here, quite tellingly, have shown no interest in working on it—leave it on tumblr! Leucippus^{Sapere aude} 18:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
That is a very good point, but the goal is to still improve. Besides, right now I am trying to fix up Tim Eyman, so...Andrew5 (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
We don't need a page that demonizes a whole group of people.--April ^Chat? 01:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't see this page as demonizing a group of people. The concept of xenogender enters into realm of alt-right trolling (e.g., Alt-right glossary#Ammosexual, RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive396#My new gender identity!) or pseudoscience at best ("plants, animals, space, fictional characters"). Bongolian (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

As per the fact that it was kept twice in just the year of 2021. Comments from the last AFD said it was pretty missional, and, as not only said there but in many other AFDs, deletion is not the way to remove stubs. Expansion is how we remove stubs, although in this case, there are other reasons. I admit it has significant problems, but these can be fixed. Editors here, including me, need to spend more time actually fixing these articles, rather then just AFD'ing them. Me included. It is missional,and as such, expansion is the answer. As an aside, Plutocow has tried multiple times to delete it before, all of which have failed. I get that Plutocow says you can only improve it by removing content, which was shot down. Personally I do support removing content and fixing up the article, and urge others to do so so we can keep this on-mission article. Andrew5 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I will also mention that every single time this happens, it appears to get very contentious and long winded. I think all of us here at RW should just calm down and not argue about everything about the article. This is clearly polarized, and it really shouldn't be. Andrew5 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The problem isn't that it's a stub, the problem is that it's outright bigoted. Any missional content could be put at Nonbinary#Xenogender. Several articles have been deleted after previous votes to keep. If we have an article criticizing Transmedicalism, we shouldn't have an article written from a transmedicalist point of view. Plutocow (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
It is not a stub, just garbage. I read it full and couldn't believe this was written on RationalWiki of all places. This reads exactly like a long forgotten draft written by 1 person on Wikipedia. Senioritas (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
"It's déjà vu all over again." Bongolian (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Christopher (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is ridiculous that we have people here who excuse blatant transmedicalism. Plutocow (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Might need a WP:TNT, but I'd prefer this to only get a TNT if you have a replacement ready. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
That's what I'm trying to say. Andrew5 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
There's already a section in Non-binary gender#Xenogender, which was sufficient for five years before some transmedicalist decided to push their agenda. Plutocow (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
It's been having a nasty enough uptick in the past year to be semi-mainstream bullshit though. I already filtered out most of the truscum stuff the last time I saw a complaint get raised over this article. The problem is that I kinda lack the sources to meaningfully rip out the last bits. Maybe you could help with that? -- Techpriest (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh, come on. This is getting stupid. Stop wasting our time. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Andrew5 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I cleaned up the article, so I'll vote "keep" for now. That is what you should have done Plutocow. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Andrew5 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
smh Monet ^Ye 08:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
-Hastur! (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh come on. An article on its fourth deletion attempt is nearly always worth keeping.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 00:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Galileo Gambit - You should note the article got merged the first time around because it was dreadful and stubby apparently. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 15:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

To be clear, I went through most of this article. The only truscum thing in there that I didn't have a good way to get rid of at the time is the gender is a social construct stuff. The rest of it is not truscum anymore. It's by no means that significant a chunk of content, I simply couldn't find any better sources. I kinda do want that improved; Gender and how it is expressed is a mess between genetic factors and environmental factors. Xenogenders take at least the highly controversial assumption that it is entirely a social construct which is... well, it's slightly veering into woo territory. Just not fully sure how to work that in the article. The Ad Iram problem is real; mostly because this stuff tends to proliferate a lot on platforms with deliberately limited expression. It's not exactly truscum to point that out. Yes this article has problems, but they're fixable. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh christ I'm having deja vu here, I said this last time too. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Techpriest But gender is a social construct. That's part of why truscum are wrong. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The confusing thing about any "gender" discussion is that there are two elements that are often conflated a bit. There is a biological sex element that usually (not always, but most of the time) falls one way or the other. It's all about the chromosomes. Then there is "gender". Most definitions like in the WHO page here refer to gender entirely to the norms, behaviors, roles, and relationships associated with relationships and/or biological sex norms. Although "gender is a social construct" is a phrase one can derive from that, I'm not entirely comfortable with completely going in this direction, because some elements of the social gender are clearly influenced from biological based factors (like the spectrum of sexual attraction and even some of the biological differences of the biological sexes). Some aren't, of course. But the phrase kind of implies that everything is just driven by social custom, which is false. This has been noted in this article and others. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has come up with a "snappy catchphrase" to express the complete situation (it probably is hard to describe the complex reality in a single sentence). So not sure how to change the phrase. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@PanGalacticGargleBlaster Social constructs can be based off of things in objective reality. I fail to see the problem there. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
And there, that should be all truscum nonsense removed, while still keeping the consistent fact that it's woo in the article (unlike TCs attempts to remove that). Also added a small reality check that wile it's more than missional, a lot of our arguments here are about the ways teenagers misunderstand the world. If there's anything left, please page me, but I think that's everything. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Page? I think you made a typo. Andrew5 (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
No, paging someone is an actual verb. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Tim Eyman | Result: Keep and expand[edit]

Tim Eyman – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Outdated and not particularly notable BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
~~Poor quality and iffy notability. Andrew5 (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)~~ Changing to keep per editors below and other AFDs. Andrew5 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
lacking notability chuck (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
He didn't really do that much to warrant an article about him here. He doesn't fit with any topic areas except politics, and even then is pretty weak. All there is to say about him is that he's a little crazy and inconsistent. So what? Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 18:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I would vote keep per Bongolian since the rationale has merits on its own, but the article is in a such unpalatable state that it isn't worth keeping. In fact, this article is outright humiliating, especially if we compare it to Wikipedia's. If someone wants to make a new article on the guy, they can always use draftspace for that. Senioritas (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying - it has poor quality. I wouldn't be opposed, but I wouldn't support, a brand new article. Andrew5 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Not convinced. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I would rather read Wikipedia's than this rubbish. 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:9818:2A69:A77C:F9B5 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

He's got a long Wikipedai page (Tim Eyman, he holds the record for number of qualified state-wide ballot measures in Washington. He's still active in politics, running for governor in 2020. He's an anti-tax advocate, and has been convicted of campaign finance crimes. Bongolian (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
My concern here is not notability, but quality. Never more then the current 1,608 bytes. If the quality cannot be improved, as it existed for over a decade, then that's more important then notability, IMO. Andrew5 (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Per Bongolian. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
He does seem to be notable at least in Washington state. Plutocow (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Per Bongolian. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 12:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Severely in need of expansion, but otherwise worth keeping. Looking at the Wikipedia page Bongolian linked to, there should be enough material to make it relevant for RW as well. Knight Commander^{In Service}_To _Her ^Goatness 19:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
-Flandres (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
If it's a bad, but on-mission, article then the solution is to fix it - not delete it.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Bob has finally convinced me. I'll see what I can do to expand it. Andrew5 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Look, I know this guy is a nobody, but the text could be merged into another article focusing on less notable politicians. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 12:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
What article? Christopher (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Wasn't there an article titled something like "RationalWiki:Webshites"? Which would make a short mention of some nobody who is pretty awful? I don't know if there's such an article focusing on politics, but it could always be made and titled "RationalWiki:ShitPolitics". (Profile) - (Spoke!) 13:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The problem is, though, is that making a new page would require other merges, and possibly some deleted articles might have to be brought back. I personally don’t see a merger being an upside. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
A ShitPolitics article would be a fucking disaster. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
So does an article titled "Webshite", the chicken coop and a social hangout only page called "saloon bar" which attracts all sorts of weird folks, but no one speaks up about them. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 21:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

~~Could a possible compromise be to move to draft space? It would remove quality issues and not totally delete it. Either that, or move to fun space. Andrew5 (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)~~ Nvm.Andrew5 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Chip Tatum | Result: Deleted[edit]

Chip Tatum – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Poorly sourced, most links are broken chuck (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Random person with little site significance, this article was written by one person in 2014 and given mostly style modifications and vandal reverts over the years. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Poor sources like chuck above BeardOfZeus (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Bongolian (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Who? ^{— Unsigned, by: Monet / talk / contribs}

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Prevention (magazine) | Result: Deleted[edit]

Prevention_(magazine) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This seems to be a random clickbait site chuck (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the wiki needs to catalog more nonsense on the internet, however this article is just too small to be of any help for anybody BeardOfZeus (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Not notable, even for RationalWiki. No references except to the publication itself. Unlikely to be expanded. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 01:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Lets see, 1 editor who wasn't active since 2014, stubby article, not notable... yeah easy delete. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you guys. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 10:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
But because of it’s stubiness and complete lack of sources. Poor quality. There is also a reason for the lack of sources…Andrew5 mobile (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

The Dark Side of the Supernatural: What is God and What Isn't | Result: Delete[edit]

The Dark Side of the Supernatural: What is God and What Isn't – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Honestly pointless. It isn't linked to any topic groups, and the information is shallow. It's a stub and makes no point about the book, author, content, or associated topics. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 20:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't appear missional, needs more sources, bad article format. Andrew5 (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Missional-ish (it's topics partially cover religious fundamentalism), but like this is a Wikipedia-ized article. Written by someone who hasn't been here for 3 years from what I can see and has been this half-hearted stub for almost 7. Outside of that, TJHV has a point. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Sloppy article chuck (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/Redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

This AFD is improperly formatted, and doesn't include a merge/redirect option. It shouldn't be acted upon until it's formatted properly. Andrew5 (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ted Stevens | Result: Moved to funspace via a series of tubes[edit]

Ted Stevens – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Stub for a decade, needs more sources. Problems that had a very long time to be fixed, but wasn't. Draft space won't be able to help as it will just be abandoned. Too many problems that aren't easy to be fixed to be allowed to live. Andrew5 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC) Moved to merge/redirect.Andrew5 (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Move[edit]

Move to funspace. That summation of the internet is to funny for us to let it die.-Flandres (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the article other that it is a stub. I'm fine with redirecting it though. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 15:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
They've persuaded me.Andrew5 (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Oldie but goodie. Move to funspace.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 15:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Stubby but funspace worthy. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

One of the options for Template:RationalWiki Slogan links to this page, it doesn’t show up if you check special:whatlinkshere. Christopher (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably ought to be moved to funspace, given his Internet statements.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 14:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

RationalWiki talk:Saloon bar | Result: Have you newcomers no respect for the great traditions of ye olde RationalWiki? Shaaame![edit]

RationalWiki talk:Saloon bar – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This is just a talk page for a talk page. This will only allow vandalism. BeardOfZeus (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
This page is kinda cringe, so I'm inclined to agree to its deletion. I mean seriously, just days ago there was a brabble going on over there because of an angry incel. It is quite literally a source for problems. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 09:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh wait, it's not the saloon bar, why does this have an inactive talkpage attached to it anyway? Just wanted to correct my point, but I'm not changing my vote, kill it with fire. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 09:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

"This will only allow vandalism." There is no evidence to back up this claim. If the page is vandalized it can be very easily reverted. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 03:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It's useful. If it becomes a significant problem, it can be protected. Bongolian (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Quite harmless. Also I'd be remiss to point out that it's quite funny to accidentally end up posting on the Bar talkpage when you meant the bar. Keep. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Wut?! Keep. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 11:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
what for? its a talk page and the talk page of the saloon bar at that. they dont get deleted, they get archived. if you have plans for how to make use of the talk page so it isnt just filled with nonsense interspersed with posts asking what the page is for, then lets hear them. else leave as is. also, im not sure how it is humanly possible to vandalise that page AMassiveGay (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It's been here since January 2009. The nominator has been here for less than a month. No need for any 'reason' to keep - it's a talk page fafux sake. Scream!! (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
There's whiskey in the fucking jar for fuck's sake! Spud (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
All of the above.Andrew5 mobile (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Don't see a problem with the saloon bar having a meta page. Doesn't cause any problems that the Bar itself doesn't already generate. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 14:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Who are these noobs attacking our great wikiś Heritage?𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 14:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Well this was certainly interesting to see when I looked through recent changes...-Flandres (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

August 2021[edit]

George McGovern | Result: Deleted[edit]

George McGovern – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

A stub for 8+ years, seems to have no sign of improvement. Normally this would warrant a draft space, but it wold probably wind up being abandoned.The page at longest was 5,002 bytes - and never more then 2,000 in a non vandalized version. -- Andrew5 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete, but make sure any redlinks are removed. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
No refs?^{(nvm, ignore me, y'all know what I mean)} Kill, kill, kill! - Rairyu75 (Talk) 15:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Totally useless. McGovern wasn't that interesting of a figure; he didn't contribute much to politics, and neither does this article. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 14:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Who? Senioritas (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Reads like a weird rant. GeeJayK (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Only really tangentially related to the Watergate scandal. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 15:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Matthew Bracken | Result: Deleted[edit]

Matthew Bracken – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Unsourced essay, not updated in a long time. Seems unlikely to be expanded. The section "Suggested titles for future books in the series" is stupid; and the link to SomethingAwful? Jeez, we can do better than this. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 04:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I could see a good article being made on someone like Forsyth or Clancy...but Bracken? He is obscure enough most of us will never come across his work, thus making it extremely unlikely the article will ever expand.-Flandres (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Some bloke on the internet (or who was on the internet in 2011) who's written 3 self-published books. Who gives a fuck? Spud (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Christopher (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Compare the first page edit with the last page edit and you'll find it's mostly spelling updates and a small addition of a synopsis. This person doesn't have the notoriety nor the relevance to the point where we'd basically be giving him and his insane ideals oxygen by tracking him. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Pilots for 9/11 Truth | Result: Merged into 9/11[edit]

Pilots for 9/11 Truth – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Obscure truthers whose only internet presence has long since gone away. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Stubby little stub. Let's boot it! - Rairyu75 (Talk) 15:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
It's 5 sentences long. Make it an article or burn it all down already. CorruptUser 18:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
— 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 07:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking about a merge, but given how there is not much on the page worth transfering over, and none of the sources work, why not just delete? I could only see a reasonable transfer of 2 unsourced sentences. --Gale5050 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Perhaps a listing of 'obscure 9/11 conspiracy theory groups' as a subsection on the main 9/11 page (or a separate page if there are enough of them) would be the simplest way of handling such matters. Anna Livia (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a bullet list of truthers in the main 9/11 page. I certainly would not object to merging this into there and expanding that section. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Per Anna Livia and Cosmik. Techpriest (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
There are likely to be a number of '9/11 - Twenty Years After, the Truth (Whether or not anyone agrees with me)' books coming out, so would be convenient to have something arranged ahead of time. 19:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Monet ^Ye 18:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems appropriate. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
A minor listing of fringe or defunct groups would be more fitting. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I like the idea proposed by Anna Livia. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This would make for a great little paragraph on the 9/11 page. It is vital that 9/11 "truthers" are relentlessly debunked.~April ^Chat? 21:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
-Flandres (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Their site appears to be down now, but was up this January. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 15:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm honestly not finding much other online presence about them (at least, not as much as AE911Truth). It looks like a similar group, "9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers" (911pilots.org) has a bigger footprint among conspiracy theorist pilots now (given they have their own active Youtube channel and Twitter), but I haven't looked too deeply into this yet. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Sluts | Result: Keep[edit]

Category:Sluts – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Inappropriate and it's phrased like a real article category. I just had to clean up someone adding this to one of our actual articles. If you want this sort of category to exist (which I would highly doubt, given that Slut is a derogatory moniker), name it something like "Slutty rationalwikians" or whatever. In it's current form, the category will only cause confusion. Inferno Bot can clean this mess up if it passes. Techpriest (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
~~Ripe for abuse, even if it's intended to be self deprecatory. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 19:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)~~
Ahhhhh it’s been around nearly 10 years. Ripe for abuse? Please show me this abuse. Ace ^{godfuckingdamnit} 22:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, everything on this wiki can be abused. That’s why it’s good that we have the revert button. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't like a category of a gendered insult that's traditionally used for misogyny, even if it's supposed to be self deprecating. Makes me uncomfortable it's tolerated here. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 16:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Back around the peak of the AIDS epidemic there was a group of sex-positive lesbians who gave safer sex education for the community.[12] They called themselves the Safer Sex Sluts. While, I am opposed to using slut as an epithet, people should be free to call themselves sluts if they want. Bongolian (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Sure that's completely fine but do we need a category? What if, say, n word was a self deprecating category? --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 20:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh fuck off LGM. The N word isn't a category and never would be allowed. This is a fucking category that has been around for years and now you are all pissed off about it? "Ripe for abuse"? It's been around from the start of RW (at least in the first couple years) and not fucking once has it been abused. Stop being such an officious wanker. Guess what, my old friend, just because you're a member of a website community doesn't mean it has to conform to your needs exclusively. I have been told many times on RW that this is the way it is so "fuck you Ace". And yeah I bitch sometimes but don't expect my wishes to become policy. Go fuck off you watermelloned headed star-nosed mole faced piece of authoritarian Badger shit. Perhaps the internet isn't for you? Go down to the library rather. There you can left alone and read only what you want. Goddamn fucking hell. Stop being so precious - you ain't a first edition copy of On the Road. You're fucking LGM with no fucking evidence that this has been abused in any sense. Get off your fucking high horse man. That thing died months ago...Ace ^{godfuckingdamnit} 00:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Please leave me alone, and do not engage with me any further from this point on. Thank you. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 00:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
It is kind of odd and open to misinterpretation. I wouldn't have nominated it, but if we are actually going through the process I'm more for delete than keep.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

A jokey relic of the past that isn't worth removing, imo. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
-Flandres (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- as a cunt and slut I say keep. Stop being such whinged wanks man. You can handle it and if you can’t then the internet probably isn’t for you. Ace ^{godfuckingdamnit} 22:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Obviously humorous and self-deprecating. 主要行事月 (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Per the 4 votes above. ~Gale5050 (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
We don’t interfere with other people’s userspace without good reason, deleting an “inappropriate” joke category isn’t a good reason. Some people have started to take this website far too seriously. Christopher (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a self-directed category so no harm. Bongolian (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Per Bongolian. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 19:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Monet ^Ye 20:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd support renaming it to "self-described sluts" --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 20:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Invalid vote. Requires new section. Ace ^{godfuckingdamnit} 00:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
No. I don't mind it staying, but just stating most ideal turn out. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 23:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
There is really no reason to nuke a category that people choose to be in.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 21:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

I like lamp - Immigrant laborer (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Oliver Canby | Result: Deleted[edit]

This article has been requested to be deleted before. See here for that discussion.

Oliver Canby – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This article seems to be harassment of a private individual. We shouldn't write articles on everyone who has ever said something wrong.—ClickerClock_{💾 talk.txt} 02:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Some dumbass with a blog. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
A nobody. Christopher (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The entire thing is written by a single editor, everything is sourced to this person as a primary source, there's basically zero notoriety. We abandoned trying to cover every single tiny crank with no major news coverage long ago. Nuke it form orbit. Techpriest (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Only 5 followers on YouTube. Bongolian (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I didn't realize they were this non notable. All for deletion. Gale5050 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
A lonely blog. Not worth covering. Exaskliri (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

I can't figure out who this person is. Is the person also Christian Chandler,[13] of Kiwi Farms fame who was recently arrested?[14] Bongolian (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Christine Chandler and she's against this bullshit. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 04:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not. Christopher (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't have an article on CWC and we shouldn't have one. Techpriest (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
~~Neutral~~ Changed to delete above - I see a case for both sides, as per the recent spam AFDs of this which resulted mainly in deletion. On the other side, I also don't see why having an extra article is necessary or harmful, and there isn't a good place to merge it into. Gale5050 (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
NOTE: This article has received an AfD before but the page naming rules weren't exactly followed. I've now fixed this. For in the future, @ClickerClock please move the old AfD to a different page. Otherwise it interferes with the AfD template on the page in question. Techpriest (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

July 2021[edit]

Climate Change Begins At Home | Result: Deleted[edit]

Climate Change Begins At Home – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

— 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 07:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Bongolian (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
8 years a stub. Techpriest (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Gale5050 (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Article does not justify its existence. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
👎 - Rairyu75 (Talk) 01:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 01:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Sources of cancer information | Result: Merged with main article on cancer[edit]

Sources of cancer information – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Random listicle, we don't really need this. For further reference (since the WhatLinksHere page is large), this one is referenced quite a bit on Template:Altmedbox but doesn't seem to have much crosswicks otherwise. Techpriest (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Christopher (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

It's feasible that I'll take the dissident side, but I believe this page can serve some minor use.~April ^Chat? 21:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Not much to it, but I don’t feel like voting to delete on this one. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
-Flandres (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Maybe append the notorious Cancer quackery site list to the section in the Cancer page? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a fair compromise. Gale5050 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Bongolian (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Monet ^Ye 18:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. It shouldn't be a separate page. It should be part of the cancer one. Spud (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. It is little more than a reference list which can easily be part of the other article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Seems like a good fit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

White Horse Prophecy | Result: Deleted[edit]

White Horse Prophecy – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

A rather obscure "prophecy" made by Joseph Smith. Not mentioned or linked to in his article here. Recommend speedy deletion and redirection to Joseph Smith as appropriate. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 04:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, ancient stub. Bongolian (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Per cosmik. Techpriest (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Even the modern LDS church dismisses it as being "based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine." Interesting footnote but not full-article worth, IMO. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Old stub. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Le boot. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 19:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The only reason for this existing as a separate page was to be a now outdated Mitt Romney joke. Spud (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

To my great unsurprise, interest peaked in October, 2012. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Fun:What do you mean we have too many templates | Result: Keep[edit]

Fun:What do you mean we have too many templates – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Almost all of these templates are outdated and it's based on drama that happened almost 15 years ago Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 21:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Nah. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
It's RW's history. We'll save nothing by deleting as it'll still be on the server although not visible. Scream!! (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Only just discovered this … The MarcusCicero quote is golden! I only had to scroll as far as the William Dembski category to realise that I’d stumbled on something … something very special. It’s a noble artefact from your history—why commit it to the flame? Leucippus^{Jodie Foster made me do it!} 23:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Harmless and inoffensive. Techpriest (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
? Monet ^Ye 09:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
No. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Funspace is mostly historical at this point. When do we stop deleting things for being outdated and just leave them as they are, similar to all the stuff nobody cares about in the conservapedia namespace? Christopher (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- But Christopher, that collapse template you hate so much isn't even in this page. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 23:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
"RationalWiki has been accused of having too many templates. It has been alleged that is caused by our editors being virgins who suffer from aspergers." This attempt at comedy hurt me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- The talkpage makes me think it’s not an attempt at comedy and the page was created after someone did “allege” that. Christopher (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Timothy Good | Result: Deleted[edit]

Timothy Good – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

No updates in eight years, no citations, hopelessly pitiful stub. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Per cosmik. Techpriest (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Pathetic. Spud (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Monet ^Ye 12:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Freethought Kampala | Result: Deleted[edit]

Freethought Kampala – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Obscure blog that hasn't been updated since January 2013. No citations at all, and tiny stub. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Per cosmik. Techpriest (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Cosmikdebris said it all. Spud (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Monet ^Ye 12:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

John Boswell | Result: Deleted[edit]

John Boswell – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Tiny stub, no citations, no substantial updates since 2016. Does anyone care? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Per cosmik. Techpriest (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Cosmikdebris said it all. Spud (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Monet ^Ye 12:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

John Boswell at Wikipedia has many sources. I remember reading about this fellow's ideas years ago and thinking 'that seems a stretch', though they gratify people's preexisting ideas and as such are probably given more credit than they deserve. Subject probably is missional. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 01:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to moving this one to the draft namespace instead of deleting it outright. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Henry Morgentaler | Result: Deleted[edit]

Henry Morgentaler – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

No citations, not updated in over eight years, tiny stub. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Per cosmik. Techpriest (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Rairyu75 (Talk) 16:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
It's pathetic. Spud (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Anita Sarkeesian | Result: Keep[edit]

Anita Sarkeesian – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

More YouTube drama about someone that hasn't been relevant or missional for almost a decade. Most of her recent work gets 3k views on YouTube, sometimes even less. Paraphrasing Circ, we're not TwitterDramaWiki [. GeeJayK (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
We have other articles that cover the missional elements in depth, and the article talkpage has become a magnet for a terminally online user who literally refuses to engage with others or provide primary sources. I'm sick of being one of the only users actually on the talkpage engaging with this shit, and would rather nuke the article than continue to deal with this stonewalling nonsense. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I think it should be subsumed under Gamergate article. Who cares about AS? UncleKrampus (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I think she is notable enough, but the frequent "citation needed" tags and overall not great quality combined with the fact she isn't very notable pushes me into weak delete territory.Gale5050 (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Gale5050 There's only two citation needed tags. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh. Gale5050 (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

~~Random Youtuber. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)~~
@Gale5050, the fact that you would rather delete the page rather than fix it, plus your home page that simply states, "A user who just lurks RW:AFD." (User:Gale5050), plus your talk page User talk:Gale5050 that shows a shitload of stupid, together these indicate that you are just here to destroy and/or cause trouble. It's up to you to prove otherwise. Oh. Bongolian (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I don't know if "not reverent" is a good argument as she made news in the Washington Post in 2020. IMHO the main problem with the article is any attempt at rational criticism is non existent and instead we get an article the is so one side it might as well be a Euclidean plane.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@BruceGrubb MAYBE IT WOULD FUCKING HELP IF YOU FUCKING ENGAGED LIKE NORMAL FUCKING PERSON!!!! I ASK FOR PRIMARY FUCKING SOURCES AND EVERY FUCKING TIME I DO YOU IGNORE MY REQUESZT AND GO RADIO SILENT, BEFORE SHOWING UP WEEKS LATER TO BITCH ABOUT THIS ONE FUCKING SUBJECT!!! I LITERALLLY CAN NOT BRING MYSELF TO FUCKING CARE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT ANYMORE AND AM ONLY FUCKING ENGAGING OUT OF A GRIM SENSE OF FUCKING DUTY TO TREAT YOU WITH SOME BASIC LEVEL OF COURTESY!!! I LITERALLY JUST WANT YOU PUT UP OR SHUT UP, AND DO NOT CARE WHICH YOU DO ANYMORE!!! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Given you are yelling a person with a recognized disability (ADHD with some recently diagnosis high functional autism) you are not helping your case.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@BruceGrubb Are you illiterate as well? What part of I'm tired of dealing with your crap do you not understand? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Number of YouTube views per video is not a valid reason for removing an article; she's not a "YouTube" personality. This subject has always been controversial because of the gamergate/alt-right aspect and will probably always attract highly polarized and contentious discussion. That's no reason to delete the article, either. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Cosmikdebris As the article itself points out, she's only a household name (on certain parts of the internet) because of the GamerGate stuff. And, further, hers was only one corner of an overall shitstorm, which as I pointed out, is covered in broader detail on the relevant articles. If you wanted to we could probably make a subsection for her on the Main GamerGate article. Would that satisfy your requirements? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The "Criticisms" section can be significantly pared down from its present state. The "claims/response" presentation is rather verbose and much of the content can be summarized better and moved to other articles. The main Gamergate article is very large already and I still think Sarkeesian deserves an article of her own here. Her article can be trimmed of a lot of its Gamergate cruft. Back when Gamergate was a raging hot issue we had a couple of editors banging out giant walls of text documenting every single little detail, which in retrospect several years later appears to have too much irrelevant internet drama. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I’ll sit this one out personally as I’ve managed to avoid learning too much about gamergate, but it does seem a merge would make more sense than straight up deletion. Christopher (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
It's a high-quality article. Allegedly becoming less relevant shouldn't be a cause for deletion. People forgot about Julius Evola for decades until the alt-right started regurgitating him. Bongolian (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Regurgitated Anita Sarkeesian? How did she taste the first time?.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Bongolian I'd like to direct you to the same compromise I offered Cosmikdebris. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Ordinarily, that would be a good compromise, but since both pages are well-written and lengthy, I don't think so. Bongolian (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
She is still a well known boogeyman for the anti-feminist types, so she's still relevant. Plutocow (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not even remotely irrelevant? She's somewhat of a legacy subject but she's like, definetly important enough to not warrant purging her from the wiki. If there's a bunch of dumbfuckery on edits and talkpages, perma-protect the thing. Jeez. Techpriest (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Wow. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Subject matter is certainly not "just" YouTube drama, wtf!!?? --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 22:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I do find it astounding that people think that a silver brainstar article is worth deleting. It would probably be the first such case. ^{— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs}
Changed vote after talking to Sirius on Discord. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep. I would be open to merging into Gamergate or something, but not outright deletion. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 22:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Seriously? Just because time moved on doesn't mean the article isn't relevant or else we wouldn't have all those historical articles. Tuxer (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
In many ways, Sarkeesian *is* just a random Youtuber. A random, actually kind of minor at first glance (only 6K subscribers for Feminist Frequency in 2011 according to archive.org) Youtuber that mainly happens to actually be notable because various asshat anti-feminist communities blew things up into a shitstorm, to the point where lots of major national news was made. So, way to Streisand effect things, anti-feminist Gamergate ass-hats! I'd support a merge effort to Gamergate to cut the "heat of the moment" crud, but I don't support lazy AfD nominations to avoid work. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Still very missional. Deleting it so GC doesn't have to go on pointless debates with a concern troll doesn't seem valid in the least. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 04:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Point of order. I am not a concern troll. I genuinely believe in the issues I raise - factual wrong/misleading examples hurts the position. Heck, that was a key part of a course I took back in the 1990s at NMSU as part of my anthropology degree. Sure as Archive3 of the talk page shows I can get rambly but that very same point was raised by others long before I got to the article. If anything I am seeing "concern troll" becoming an Ad Hominem. This from Stop Calling Me a Troll sums it up best "What if all these people aren’t trolls? What if they’re just, you know, disagreeable or stupid or merely wrong? What if, despite holding opinions that you don’t like, and despite expressing those opinions in a manner that seems a tad impolite, they came by their views honestly?"--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
— Oxyaena ^Harass 05:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Kind of weak "Keep".Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I know it's late, but it's such a long and good article to be deleted. Exaskliri (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Radio Islam | Result: Vaporized[edit]

Radio Islam – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The article has no citations, the subject's website is dead, and the organization is apparently defunct. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Per cosmik. Techpriest (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Titania McGrath| Result: Deleted[edit]

Titania McGrath – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Delete on the grounds that the article as is merely praises Doyle's "satire" and defense of "free speech" (something that seems rather selective when one bothers to read his columns). There's no critical examination of the hoax/satire and no further critical examination of the point Doyle was supposed to be making. It's just a puff piece, and a poor quality one at that. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed.-Flandres (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Dumb Twitter stuff. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, no real analysis, just a summary of events, and probably even less notable than people like Mister Metokur. Plutocow (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia import with almost no alteration in two years on a twitter account no one should care about. Christopher (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Twitter bollocks? EXTERMINATUS 主要行事月 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Bongolian (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Nuke it with an orbital strike. Techpriest (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Ryan Faulk | Result: "I don't feel so good, Mr. Toulouse..."[edit]

Ryan Faulk – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

He seems to me as a complete and utter nobody. His YouTube channel (that wasn't even that big to begin with) has been deleted for over a year now, and his Twitter account, from 2009, has 1,5k followers. Most of the article is also Twitter drama with quote mining. Last but not least Oliver Smith wrote a considerable part of the article, but you guys probably imagined that. GeeJayK (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
RW is basically acting as a summarizer and aggregator here. I can't see how that's missional. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
His website, "The Alternative Truth," hasn't seen a new post since March 19, 2020, and it looks like his posts (all 9 of them) are locked behind a patron paywall on SubscribeStar. If he was popular enough to warrant missionality in the past, he's now fallen into obscurity. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Another altright YouTube nobody who earned his five minutes of clout from some twitter drama of yesteryear? Burn it! Who the fuck even is this guy? And why the fuck should we care? He doesn't deserve the free clout from an RW article, and as per my motto that bears repeating, we're RationalWiki, not TwitterDramaWiki. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Halloween!}🎃CircularRasoning🎃^{See my experiments} 15:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I could see having an article on obscure folks like these if one of their posts went viral on (esp. right-wing) social media (thus probably necessitating an analysis/debunking), but at least for Faulk here, I'm not seeing that case. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
He was maybe missional ten years ago, and that's a stretch. He now appears to have fallen into complete obscurity. Candidate for speedy deletion. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I am surprised it was deleted, Faulk is quite big in the alt-right community and made some very big holocaust denial videos. Debunky (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

June 2021[edit]

Keemstar | Result: Deleted[edit]

Keemstar – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Just another YouTube talking head. The article consists of nothing more than a bunch of links to videos and some Twitter drama. No redeeming value whatsoever. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 21:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
A professional youtuber who believes some stupid stuff and sometimes says offensive things, not someone we need an article on. The article won’t be improved because there’s nothing else to say. Christopher (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
"Sometimes"? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Some dumbass on the internet. The article itself even notes in the "ego" section that he doesn't have any real world impact beyond making an ass of himself. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
dont know anything about this fella, but missional or not, the article itself is wank. its just a series of quotes with litte to no analyis, commentry, or context to pull it all together in any useful way. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Just a list of stances. 48 sources, including 45 to Twitter, 2 to the YouTube page, and 1 to a 404 podcast with no archive.is archive and a broken archive.org archive. He’s a professional youtuber, but even his YouTube apparently has so little worth noting that we must rely on his Twitter instead. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 13:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I removed the 404 podcast. Gale5050 (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
RationalWiki is not Twitter. And also, is it really missional? Gale5050 (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Who? Monet ^Ye 19:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Laterally who? 主要行事月 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Benefit of the doubt is usually wasted on articles talking about youtube nobodies. As I've said countless times before, we're RationalWiki, not TwitterDramaWiki. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}🎃CircularRasoning🎃^{See what I'm planning} 22:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Hydronium hydroxide (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Like it or not, he has a huge platform, and he has used it to spread 2020 election conspiracies, among other things. He is definitely missional. Plutocow (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not personally on you to improve the article, but what are your suggestions to improve it? I'm not liking its formatting as it does convey just a random yahoo on Twitter. I'd suggest improving the references but is there a way we can better convey clout from him rather than just sheer numbers? --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 21:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
What Plutocow said. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Move to draftspace, obviously. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Deliberated it; this should be a draftspace. Even if it's an eternal draft, we shouldn't completely ditch Keemstar, the current article just kinda sucks. Techpriest (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Looks like Twitter shito. What is this guy's clout in YouTube? Guy does have a large clout of followers but the article isn't that good. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's more of a Youtube shito. His popularity primarily comes from commentating on and sparking drama, IIRC. Looking at his top 50 videos on Socialblade (only 1 of which is from after 2019, I should say), the folks he covers include James Charles, Jake/Logan Paul, KSI, Leafyishere, Mr Beast, Ninja, etc.
  His Wikitubia article also has 28 different subsections under "Controversy." Eesh. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Withholding my vote for now. I'm kinda inclined to keep, as he still has a platform that still literally attracts a million views per video (basically, similar reasoning as, e.g., Chuck Norris. It's not what he's best known for, but it's his platform that allows it). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I keep going back and forth on this. Keemstar is somewhat half-instrumental to understanding the direction of YouTube (his entire youtube career is basically a reflection of the YouTube landscape at it's very worst, oscilating from videogame trolling to more questionable stuff to arguably being the root for the "debatebro" culture that would eventually pop up it's political segment (even if Keemstar himself isn't actively involved with those). At the same time, our article doesn't really reflect much of this, nor do I think that I could give you any notable sources on this very matter. He's an internet punchline, a footnote of a joke whose presence is reflective of the platform as a whole. I get that the site has a notable counterjerk on no-name YouTubers but Keemstar is a little bit more than that. I'll wait a short bit to see if I'll vote keep. Techpriest (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 U.S. Capitol riot/Charges | Result: Gone. Reduced to atoms.[edit]

2021 U.S. Capitol riot/Charges – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Recently we've been deleting terf articles on the basis that these were people of insignificance with around a few hundred or so followers on Twitter. This article is a big offender. No one on the list with a few exceptions like Q Shaman, Alex Jones, and Nick Fuentes have any following or notability whatsoever. Another problem I spotted is Jones and Fuentes have not been charged even though they are present on the list (possible oversight?). Those that have any notability or following should maybe have their own small section noting their participation or charges on the main article rather than listing every single charged participant. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Exposing and humiliating people? No. GeeJayK (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Christopher (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

主要行事月 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

serves no purpose. one or two individuals might be of note but the rest? this should all be a matter of public record. what are we adding that cant be gleaned from that? whats added to the capitol riot page with this? nothing on both counts, but we sure do like a list AMassiveGay (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Ridiculous! Any clueless fuck can punch out a list. It has no intelligent connection with the mission statement and the presentation is incredibly ugly—just one wall of text after another. Leucippus^Talk 00:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
This list doesn't present well, that's true. It came into being organically and very quickly after the January 6 events unfolded, and grew very large very quickly. A lot of people contributed to it. This is a current event and events will continue to unfold over the next several months. Eventually we may decide to turn this into a reference page (yes we still have a few of these on this wiki) or reformat it, or promote it to an article in its own right, or at some point, make it go away. Just because it's ugly, that's no reason to trash the work of many of your fellow editors who are probably a little disturbed at you referring them to "clueless fucks." —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 00:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I was referring to the triviality of making a list; anyone can do it and the info can be found elsewhere. Furthermore, the majority of these individuals aren’t notable enough to even warrant an article, and it is neither feasible nor interesting to have an article that focuses one-by-one on each individual; most of whom, I suspect, can’t be scrutinised in the level of detail that our mission statement requires. An article on the Capitol Hill Insurrection? which would enable the documentation of the major crank ideas, the key figureheads who influenced the insurrection, and the way in which these were handled in the media—sure, go for it; an article which gets bogged down in the listing of minor players and their arrest warrants will be obscure and inefficient—we won’t be able to see the forest for the trees! Leucippus^Talk 16:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Was the January 6 insurrection an important and relevant event? Yes! Is it important that Zachary "Zac" Hayes was charged with disorderly and disruptive conduct as a result of his participation? Not really. The only important thing about these people is the collective action they took on January 6, and all the importance of that can be covered without a listicle of the particular people. Those who are individually important have their own articles, and much of the political relevance of the insurrection is tangled up with people who did not directly participate anyway. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 02:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete as malicious slander. Not a single individual has been charged with insurrection. Dutchbag (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
A), demonstrate malice. B), learn what slander is. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
slander/libel is kind of splitting hairs here - its a talk page not a court room. also for malicious ust take a gander at the keep votes. no.1 for example AMassiveGay (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Not a single person has been charged with insurrection. Virtually all are trespass or civil disorder charges. There are a few conspiracy to commit civil disorder charges. There is one person charged with a firearms violation. [15] Dutchbag (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dutchbag Don't try to armchair lawyer, you're shit at it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Anna Morgan-Lloyd, "first person sentenced in the riots" is registered Democrat, per WaPo. Dutchbag (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
And? Party affiliation hardly means much on its own in regards to "big tent" parties like the Dems or the GOP. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, demographic outliers are to be expected in large gatherings, such as the January 6th insurrection attempt. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
(ec) dunno what your point is here. its neither slander or libel. its a pointless list that adds nothing to article its attached and serves no purpose on its own. it is, i assume, a factual list that does not accuse anyone of insurrection. it just lists a bunch of fucknuts and what they are charged with. it should be deleted but not because you dont have a clue about what you are talking about. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
So, are we now saying registered Democrats are white supremacists, since the first conviction is a registered Democrat? Dutchbag (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
And these two things are mutually exclusive how exactly? Again, outliers in large groups are a thing. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Further, that would be a registered Democrat. As in singular. There's currently no credible evidence that the majority of the participants in the attempted insurrection were anything other than Trump and GOP supporters. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Should we strike this vote on the basis that it was cast by a retard? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, party registration does not necessarily correlate to political views, otherwise Kentucky would be a blue state. Plutocow (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Duce, how many times are you going to be told to knock it off with that word!??!?!? --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 23:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
It’s not a bad word though. It’s just a stronger insult for stupidity. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
This is just another boring list practically no person will spend ten whole minutes to read through. Anti-swamp (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Monet ^Ye 07:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I have not seen a good mission-based argument for keeping this list. Simply saying "authoritarianism" without giving a supporting argument is not convincing. That is not saying that I couldn't be persuaded.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

--Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}🎃CircularRasoning🎃^{Prototype lab} 17:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not our purpose to name and shame.-Hastur! (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
The case for keeping the article in question seems to have not improved from the last time I checked. Thusly, my vote is for deletion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Exposing and humiliating insurrectionists? Yes. And they can also get stuffed besides.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh look some people whining about right-wing insurrectionists getting exposed. Individual responsibility guys!!! LOL.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
This is not "exposing and humiliating" people. They've already been exposed by the DOJ, and in many cases in news reports. Those who are found innocent can be removed obviously. Take a look at Anna Morgan-Lloyd. She is a low-level offender who is actually someone who decided to take responsibility for her actions: she quickly pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge, recognized that she contributed to the problem by enabling the offenders who were violent, and educated herself at her lawyers behest before sentencing.[16] Those people who are found guilty should not be forgotten like the rioters in Tulsa were. Bongolian (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
This is an active and current news event, and I think it is very important to keep, as it documents hundreds of sources relating to the events of January 6. "Exposing and humiliating insurrectionists" ? Give me a fucking break. These people are exposed by the United States Department of Justice and the extremism study at George Washington University. The page here on RW includes those two primary sources and hundreds of others that give context to the extent and scope of the insurrection. If these people are humiliated by this exposure, perhaps they shouldn't have participated in the riot in the first place. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Adding to that, most if not all, of these people were there "to make history". Well, they got that wish, but not in the way that they wanted. So, the idea that they shouldn't be "exposed and humiliated" here is ridiculous. Bongolian (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
One of the biggest, most notable events in American political history, definitely mission-oriented, and people are giving a fuck that a few people are documenting the names? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Worth keeping, although I hope at some point it gets updated to focus on convictions. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Why not?-Flandres (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this is pretty important information that should stay. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward keep. Like I don't see an issue of having a list as a separate page though perhaps if there's just an external link of all these people that makes this article a bit obsolete, I'll take that too. This definitely fits on the authoritarianism aspect of it, based on what the insurrectionists supported (it would be appropriate for RationalWiki to have an article of Beer Hall putsch, which this insurrection attempt has a lot of parallels to), not sure why it's being debated in the comments section. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 20:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm confused. Are you saying that it would be appropriate for RW to have an article on the Beer Hall putsch, or to have an article listing every individual participant in the Beer Hall putsch? We already have a separate article on the insurrection. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 20:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean a hypothetical article on a Beer Hall putsch wouldn't be out of place. A list of the participants might be just an accessory we don't need but the subject itself is missional. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 20:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the insurrection is missional, but I am doubtful whether this accessory is really adding anything. We don't and will never cover every authoritarian in the world; what makes these people worth listing? Sure, this happened recently, but it failed just like the putsch. Some 2000 people participated in the putsch; how many does anybody care about? A movement or event can, I think, be significant even if it is carried out largely by a bunch of nobodies. I'll also add this question: of the notable people who participated in the Beer Hall putsch, how many of them are notable for that, and how many are notable because, say, they went on to become leaders in the Nazi government or military? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 20:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The necessity for a list might be debatable but as it's peripheral to the capitol riot, talking about the missionality of the list is just an extension of talking about the missionality of the riot. That's how I understood it. I'm also doubtful about the need for a list like this but I don't see an issue of having one either. It's just one list. Lists aren't otherwise excessively done throughout the wiki. Sure there might be a superior public database for it which can serve for an external link incase the article is deleted, but there's no one is putting that forward? As for second question, I think the list itself is supposed to illustrate the sheer amount of people that participated in such a thing and because they're not notable they're just relegated to that list. If any became a major political figure then probably create an article on them. Again I don't think the list on participants of Beer Hall putsch should exactly have a hypothetical article either hence why I don't feel strongly for this list tbf but can we even see a list of putsch participants easily? --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 17:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Per others. Plutocow (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree /w others. I do agree that the page is somewhat disorganized, but that can be fixed within the span of an hour. Celeste (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh no, how dare we expose all the fascist insurrectionists who vigorously yearned to kill millions of oppressed peoples by taking all-out control of the government! Just think about what they'd perceive if we leaked all their names, maybe they'd be ashamed for the rest of their miserable lives or something.~April 21:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
you could have just said 'worse than hitler' and left it at that AMassiveGay (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
??? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
if one is going for gross hyperbole, why half arse it? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
— Oxyaena ^Harass 03:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Merge back into main article in reduced fashion. Techpriest (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Does not need a stand alone article but info must stay.Gale5050 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Spite isn’t a good reason to keep an article, no matter how deserving. We’ve deleted plenty of articles on bad people. Christopher (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not voting either way at the moment, I'm just trying to figure out which part of the mission it would come under, and if this could be added to the introduction. I'm not convinced by the argument, "Look, it's political!"Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Coverage of authoritarianism, as these yahoos (no matter how clumsy of an attempt it was) tried to challenge America's democratic system. There's a better argument that the list needs to be trimmed to be more notable. A full AFD seems dumb though, this was not a small event. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
But an attempt to overturn a government isn't necessarily authoritarianism and the article certainly doesn't present it that way. It doesn't actually make any point at all it's just a list.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I think the purpose is to supplement the main 2021 U.S. Capitol riot article without cluttering it, it's similar to how QAnon map dissection was separated from the main QAnon aritcle. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I suspect that - unless it gets a good mission-based introduction it will not last. At the moment everyone understands why it could be important - but in ten years this will be history, someone will look at it and ask "WTF! Why do we have this?". If someone doesn't put a good reason on it now it will disappear then. (And if we can't put a good reason in the article now then it should be deleted.)Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
There's little to no difference between these two articles, except for the fact than this one is newer. And yet, only one of them got deleted. GeeJayK (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I can see the argument from both sides, It's missional but we're not a doxxing site. Employers do need to knowing the things those chuds did, but what if they regret it later on in life? Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 06:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's not doxing if it's public information. Plutocow (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  - yes it is public information. so why is it needed here? it adds nothing to capitol riot page. it serves no purpose for us or anyone being here. it is here purely because we like lists AMassiveGay (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    - also charged is not the same as convicted. people are talking like thats one and the same. innocent until proven guilty i believe is the rule. a list of the convicted will still be just as worthless.^{— Unsigned, by: AMassiveGay / talk / contribs}
Some of the people who voted to delete are taking this way too seriously. It's fucking hilarious. That's probably half of my reasoning for voting to keep, hmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
No one will read this article or reference it for useful information. It serves no purpose, and people are voting to keep it as a kneejerk reaction to something that supports a position they agree with. Flandres is right that everyone is taking this far too seriously. Christopher (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit torn here. On the one hand, this article is a listicle, consisting primarily of what amounts to grunts. Editors in the keep camp seem less than compelling in their arguments. On the other hand, some in the delete camp seem to have less than stellar reasoning of their own, referring to the article as "slander", and arguing that no one has been charged with insurrection, with the implication that the event was in fact, not insurrection. Despite my misgivings, however, I'm leaning towards delete unless the keep camp can give a compelling argument. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
When the DOJ brings insurrection charges, and conspiracy to commit insurrection, and a federal court finds them guilty, then it can and should be labeled insurrection. Until then, you simply have the same mob mentality in the media and others who follow the herd. Dutchbag (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Curiously for someone supposedly attempting to stick to legal terms, you seem quite selective in their application. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The DOJ, federal courts, and a jury of their peers will determine if it was an insurrection - not the media or elected politicians. Thus far, the DOJ has presented no evidence or indictments of insurrection. Dutchbag (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I also find it curious that you think I'm using the media's definitions, or the definitions used by elected politicians. Perhaps you're making spurious assumptions about my line of thinking and motives? Hmm... Curious indeed... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Not at all. I'm referring to 18 U.S. Code § 2383. At best, what they have so far is Conspiracy to Obstruct Congress against one individual. The rest for the most part are criminal trespass charges against Capitol tourists. It's a tuff sell to claim 532 people armed with one gun engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow the United States government and Constitution. Dutchbag (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm convinced Dutchbag is a sock of someone from Conservapedia. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
He might be, but paranoid speculation is pointless. Christopher (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dutchbag"It's a tuff sell to claim 532 people armed with one gun engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow the United States government and Constitution." There was quite a bit more than one gun, and quite a few more people than just 532. See, now I get to flex actual legal knowledge. When a crime is committed, the prosecution tries to narrow the pool of suspects down to those they can actually try successfully. This means they'll try to flip co-defendants into testifying in this thing called a "plea bargain". Such deals may result in reduced charges, punishment, or the complete negation of the above, depending on the severity of the crime, the participants role in the crime, and the value of the testimony given. Further, the prosecution might decide not to press charges against the most minor offenses so as to save their limited time and resources for the major defendants. Or, in other words, quite a few more people could have committed crimes, but were ultimately let go or left to their home state to deal with due to not being worth the hassle for federal prosecutors. You also still don't know what slander is, hence my open mocking of your supposed commitment to exclusively using legal terms. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

You're right. I stand corrected. Two people, not one, were arrested and charged on weapons charge, per the article. [17] As to the rest of it, it sounds like Revolver News conspiracy crap. Dutchbag (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Can't vote due to being IP, but shaming doesn't change behaviour, but pointing out guilt can change behaviour. If this article can remain non-shaming, it seems like a good idea to keep around and would vote "keep". 2A02:7AA0:1619:0:0:0:D71B:C3DB (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Anyone can vote in AfDs, including IPs. Christopher (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
RW votes shouldn't be binding, IPs cannot be democracy for countless reasons (gaming being the main one) and voting should be limited to users with known identities. If not, voting should just be left up to the top admin imo. Abstaining.2A02:7AA0:1619:0:0:0:D71B:C3DB (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
whose going to be shamed by this list? those on it wont even be aware of it most likely. anyones guilt will pointed out when they are sentenced in court and have criminal records - we are not providing some kind of public service here, we are just wasting bandwidth and fellating the egos of those who think we are 'exposing' crims like internet batman AMassiveGay (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
This article is 13-13 tie with 2 for merging, so how will we sort this? -Gale5050 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Wait a bit for someone to break the tie. If no consensus is reached nothing happens, article is kept, someone will probably nominate the article again to settle things properly (I’d personally wait a year or two, a few months later and it seems the wound of the capitol riot is still fresh for many American liberals). Christopher (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I address here the arguments for deleting the page: 1) Most of the people are insignificant. Listing their names is unimportant, particularly for misdemeanor charges. 2) It is exposing or humiliating people. 3) It is malicious slander.
Some of these arguments have already been hashed out above.
1. In the past, articles that are supportive of mission but not that are not strictly missional in-and-of-themselves have been found to be acceptable. The specific support that this page provides is as evidence against the various conspiracy theories that are detailed on the main page. For example the argument that the people at the riot were actually tourists or petitioners. This page shows that large numbers of people at the riot may not have had initial criminal intent but wound up committing misdemanors such as trespass anyway. As evidenced by the testimony of the Anna Morgan-Lloyd, who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor demonstrating inside the Capitol, the mob who were probably not initially criminally inclined gave cover for the smaller group: "At first it didn’t dawn on me, but later I realized that if every person like me, who wasn’t violent, was removed from that crowd, the ones who were violent may have lost the nerve to do what they did."[18]
2. The people who were present at the Capitol already exposed themselves: 1) by intent: many of them went 'to make history' 2) by being in public 3) by getting arrested and entering the public record and in newspapers.
3. This is not malicious slander because it's the truth. Everyone named is cited with a government and or a news report. Innocent until proven guilty of course.
Bongolian (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
None have been charged with insurrection or hate crimes. The only way they can be referred to as insurrectionists would be for (1) a group of them declared insurrection; (2) the commander-in-chief of the executive branch declared an insurrection against the United States; or (3) the legislative branch declared an insurrection existed against the United States.

As noted, none have been charged with hate crimes, either.

Knowing these facts now, continued reference to "insurrectionists" and "white supremacists" is malicious slander. Dutchbag (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
You're nitpicking because there are mutiple news articles that either refer to them as a group as insurrrectionists or refer to the event as an insurrection. Just look at the reference section on the page. Bongolian (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. Dump all the slanderous sources and references.

Now, your next retort will be, But the New York Times said so. As my mom used to say, If all the other kids jumped off a bridge, would you, too? Ask yourself, "If everybody else entered the Capitol, would you, too?" As written, the article has the same mob mentality the protesters had. Dutchbag (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Responding to (1), iirc we recently had a purge of the reference space, but if you have specific instances of non-strictly-missional stuff kept to provide support for more-missional-stuff, I would appreciate links to compare. As it stands, I'm sympathetic to the point GeeJayK is making wrt the Iraq War vote article. As far as the support this article provides to the main article, I note that the first reference is cited over 300 times, and glancing over its content, it seems to provide more details than we have here (e.g. more charges are listed). What do you think is the advantage provided by this support-article over an external link to that source (and maybe a few of the others) in the main article, in establishing the point you note? To put it another way, why do you think this is the best way to do this (or if you don't think it is, why not make a change)? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 03:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
As far as point 1, there is a lare amount of non-missional material on RW, not necessarily in the same way as the page in question though. For example, we have science-related articles that are non-missional but presumable are kept because they support articles in pseudoscience and anti-science. Similarly, we have an article each on Antifa and on SJW, presumably because they support articles on authoritarianism. I'm certainly open to revising the structure of the page, for example removing the many citations of DOJ's and George Washington University's arrestee pages and just citing them once at the beginning. Bongolian (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I've never been convinced by the argument: "There is other non-missional stuff on the wiki - therefore this particular non-missional stuff is justified." Because you could attempt to justify literally anything using that argument.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Relevant considerations: We've nuked other stubs involving "people did thing X" lists (a recent one included an article about the vote on the Iraq war). The article is properly sourced, but I am also questioning the importance of documenting this to the extent we do now. There's a couple of big ones (Baked Alaska and that one dude with horns jump to mind immediately) who we should definetly have listed in our main section since they shouldn't be swept under the rug, but to pick a random subject; why do we care about Yevgemya Malimon from Oregon? They're a random nobody. Unless our goal is to maintain a list on every person who attended this miserable attempt to re-enact the Beer Hall Putzsch, which would not be missional. The list is missional in the sense that it matches criteria 3: exploration of how the subject of authoritarianism in the media. That said, not every person on this list is missional. I feel like we can prune this list down to just the ones we have articles on and we'd be much better off. At this point, the list is also small enough to fit back into the main article. Techpriest (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Anyone going to break the tie or will this have to end in no consensus? Christopher (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Frankly Chris, I’m shocked. There are far more important things going on, crucial to the future of this site. Head over to the the WIGOCP page! —That’s an order! Leucippus^Talk 21:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Even if the tie is broken, @Christopher, please keep in mind that it would still be a plurality, as in, while one option has more votes then the others, no option has crossed the 50% threshold. This would probably result in some kind of keep or force compromise until one side hits 16 votes. Gale5050 (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Wait, does having "Keep" and "Merge" outweigh "Delete" still not necessarily mean the article will not be deleted? I kinda feel like that's some FPTP fuckery if so. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Christopher The tie has been broke, no thanks to Dutchbag, who's inane ranting and selective legal pedantry likely pushed people away from the delete vote. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bongolian No matter what the result of this Afd I think we can all agree that this article needs a major reformulation as the Delete and Merge/redirect are more than half of the votes, and a considerable part of those that voted for keep also mention a few problems with it. You're one of the most important users of this small community, and you know it, so I'm sure you'll find out a way if this article survives the current afd. GeeJayK (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
47% of the people want it to be totally deleted, 47% want it to be improved and kept, and 6% of them support a merge into the main article. We should wait until one option hits 50%. Gale5050 (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Death toll of Christianity | Result: Deleted[edit]

Death toll of Christianity – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Probably missional, but it has too many problems to mention in only one comment. If it's difficult to measure most of the deaths caused by Christianity in the recent years I imagine centuries ago, where most deaths probably took place. According to the article "The most famous estimate is 56 million deaths, but a more critical examination would put Christianity's death toll at 9.064 to 28.734 million. However, if you widen responsibility to mean any mass atrocity caused by largely Christian societies regardless of motive then the death toll of Christianity would ascend to 82.069 to 106.734 million deaths." Apparently the claim of the 56 million deaths comes from a book called "The Rationalist's Manual", written in the XIXth century. I don't think it was possible to measure such thing decades before econometrics became a real science, and even today with precision. Another source is a guy called Matthew White and a and his book The Great Big Book of Horrible Things. Acording to his site he's a librarian with little to no academic credentials, so, not a very good source, I believe. The words "communism" and "communist" appear on this article almost 30 times. Apparently the author wants to put both on the same level, who knows. GeeJayK (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't belive the mentions of Communism is supposed to equate communism with Christianity or anything like that. The mentions of "Communism" come from the association between Communist governments and ~~anti-Christianity~~ atheism among Christian apologists (particularly China and the Soviet Union), so apologists tend to paint deaths under authoritarian communist regimes as purported "deaths due to Atheism." ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Ahistorical nonsense, unsalvageable. Christopher (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Christianity definitely killed many people, albeit we are unable to know an exact figure. This is particularly the case when it comes to deaths from bygone eras, before ecometrics even existed. This article has a lot of bad sources along with a significant presence of needless commentary. In my opinion--unless this page gets dramatically fixed--it doubtlessly must be expunged from this wiki.~April 21:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
As others have already said, while yes, Christianity did undeniably claim countless lives for nearly two millenia, looking for the exact body count across such a huge-ass period of time that goes all the way back to long before we were capable of calculating exact numbers of people on such a large scale is pointless and downright silly. A similar topic is handled far better in this article- which also includes deaths from other religions, e.g. Islam. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Halloween!}🎃CircularR asoning🎃^{Prototype lab} 00:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Just because you can't find a reliable death toll figure absolutely does not warrant removal of the article. It is very missional as already stated. However, I would support a split as well. Gale5050 (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
But supposing it is possible to measure this are we going to keep an article that has poor sources and is probably wrong just for sake of a possible edit in the future? That does not convince me. GeeJayK (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the problem with about 90% (including my) AFD's. They just need expansion, copy editing and better sources. I will refrain from making such future AFD's and this also has an extensive edit history. But I will change to a weak keep. Pinging @Lucid dreaming lucifer, the creator.Gale5050 (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
That user wasn't active for over three years.. Monet ^Ye 07:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Merge into a section of the main Christianity article. There's too little sourced or reliable information in order to justify a full page on this. Celeste (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

One of y’all better delete all of the red links this will create! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 11:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll do it. There's not that many of them. Spud (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy | Result: Keep[edit]

Hurricane Sandy – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

~~Not very good (kinda short) and considering how we only have one other hurricane article, it is not very necessary. Gale5050 (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)~~ Moving to merge. Gale5050 (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Not missional enough to justify its quality or vice versa, created in 2013 so little hope of improvement. Christopher (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I find the humor amusing enough to keep and preserve as a bit of RW history. There was some crankery involved in this, I think it should stay based on it being perfectly missional and certainly notable enough. I might keep a mirror of this in my userspace if this deletion fails on these reasons alone. Article does not apepar to have major outstanding issues either. I say keep it. Techpriest (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the need for RW to go about on a deletion frenzy. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Bongolian (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
What an enjoyable sight!-Flandres (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
It can stay. April 22:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
It's fine. Brought out bigots, is an illustrative example of why climate change deniers are scum of the planet, yeah. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 22:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Very missional subject. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

There is some funny content, but not enough to be stand alone. It can be merged into the 2012 election article, the Obama article and maybe the mitt Romney article if appropriate.Gale5050 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Before someone describes how a hurricane with 234 deaths (probably more) and nearly $70 billion that had political effects isn't missional - why don't we have one on Hurricane Maria? In addition, it is terribly short and those two things make it not really necessary and deletable. Gale5050 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Tonje Gjevjon | Result: Deleted[edit]

Tonje Gjevjon – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This article relies heavily on the subject's Twitter account. Said account has a paltry 1,506 followers. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Notable enough to have article on Norwegian Wikipedia. In addition, they have 1352 following, which is a lot. Gale5050 (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
CharlotteTakveis article. Christopher (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 22:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't appear notable. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Twitter shito --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 22:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
We don't need an article on every nobody who might at some tome have said something insulting. Spud (talk) 05:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Bongolian (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Kill it Monet ^Ye 08:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Eh, if it can be merged along with the others it won't go nowhere.Gale5050 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
What others are being merged? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Women's Human Rights Campaign, RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Maya Forstater, RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Anki Gerhardsen. Gale5050 (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Can we just get this over with and delete all of these articles per the ATiM discussion? Christopher (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I would support that. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 22:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm beyond caring. User-created memes on a webpage are usually a bad sign. Bongolian (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Women's Human Rights Campaign | Result: Deleted[edit]

Women's Human Rights Campaign – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Has a grand total of 17,000 followers worldwide and Twitter followers numbering in the lower quadruple digits; obscure groups as scummy as these degenerates don't even deserve the free clout from an RW article. Also, 98% of this was made by an insufferable, overly-passionate, holier-than-thou editor who has a very shitty track record when it comes to editing. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Halloween!}🎃CircularR asoning🎃^{See what I'm planning} 18:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Full of misinformation on specific living people that we’ve already deleted a lot of other articles over, not worth saving. Christopher (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@CharlotteTakveis, if you're reading this, I warn you that if you keep trying this shit when it comes to living persons without any proof, you could be facing a topic ban from anything that's TERF-related. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Halloween!}🎃CircularR asoning🎃^{See what I'm planning} 19:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think she’s made a single edit that wasn’t TERF-related, and it looks like she’s left the site of her own accord anyway after she saw all of her articles being deleted. Christopher (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Slightly missional, but too low-quality to keep. 主要行事月 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
If they are worth covering, probably the safest and most efficient course of action would be to start from scratch. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 22:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Not good. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Aside from notability issues, author has demonstrated a clear tendency towards hyperbole that sometimes tips over into outright misrepresentation of source materials. There's also a deeply weird Godwin / No True Scotsman thing running through much of the article, as though TERFs can be magicked out of left-wing feminist existence by sheer weight of polemic. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Per HBC. While TERFs may share views with reactionaries, the root cause of those views is a (flawed) form of feminism. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Monet ^Ye 05:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Very strong keep. It is a very good article, enough to get a bronze or even silver, and 17,000 followers is a lot. This article should be kept. Gale5050 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but that's nothing by today's standards. Also, I fail to see how this is even close to "very good", let alone worthy of a bronze or silver. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Halloween!}🎃CircularR asoning🎃^{See what I'm planning} 20:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

17,000 kinda is. Besides, there is no limit to how many articles we can have, as long as they are good. This one is, it has a lot of length and filling content. Gale5050 (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Nvm. Moving to neutral. Gale5050 (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Why are we AFD'ing all of these articles that are sometimes actually good? Gale5050 (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gale5050 The author has been writing libellous BLPs on people connected to this organisation (a common theme is massively overstating that connection) for months without anyone noticing, we’re now in the process of cleaning up her mess. The article may look good because it’a got a high word count, but it’s very inaccurate. It’s understandable that you’d be confused as that hasn’t been made very clear in this afd, discussion of the issue has happened in a lot of different places so it’s hard to get the full story. Christopher (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I understand that. However I always believe in "assess it by the content and not by the contributor". Gale5050 (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The content is inaccurate and borderline libellous. Christopher (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Now I am neutral. Gale5050 (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

1984 U.S. presidential election | Result: Deleted; literally 1984[edit]

1984 U.S. presidential election – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not very good, stub for 2+ years. Gale5050 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Christopher (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Dubiously needed. Will just turn crufty. Maybe a collection of historical US presidential elections as a single article could be useful, but this is not one of the more interesting kinds. Techpriest (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Achieves nothing. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 12:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that articles about long-ago elections really fit the mission all that well. What purpose does this serve? Avida Dollars^{her again} 12:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
-Flandres (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Monet ^Ye 18:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hopelessly tiny stub, would be better off as a section in our Ronald Reagan article or something. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Halloween!}🎃CircularR asoning🎃^{My experiments} 18:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't even fathom what this article sets out to achieve. 主要行事月 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Need it be said? Kauri0.o (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Wasn't a particularly interesting US election. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd say it was unique enough being so lopsided and in recent memory. That said, it wasn't even the most lopsided one in history (1936, when FDR beat Alf Landon 523:8 by winning all but Maine and Vermont, with a 60.8/36.5% divide of the popular vote). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, it is notable for being the latest "landslide election" by the usual standard...but that can be easily mentioned on other articles if necessary.-Flandres (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, that isn't totally true. I can go to https://map.jacksonjude.com/ and see 1984 was the last time in which anyone won more then 270 "safe" votes as in margins of 15%+. He won by 19% in the popular vote. But 1988 was still 7.7%, 1996 was 8.5% and 2008 was 7.2%. If I were to look at Wikipedia tipping points, this was 19%, whereas 1988 would be 7.9, 1996 would be 9.2 and 2008 would be 9 (for a tie). Finally, while Reagan was the last to recieve over 500 votes, Bush recieved 426 in 1988, and Clinton recieved 379 in 1996 and Obama got 365 in 2008. So all three and maybe even 1992 could be considered landslides. Gale5050 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I was going by "double digit margin of victory in terms of the popular vote." In percentages, obviously.-Flandres (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
But should that really be used? I mean, 1800 was, but the electoral college was 73-65 and Adams needed just a 3% shift. Where as the margin was only 9.7% in 1980 and only required an 8% shift, but was still a 489-49 victory. What is a "landslide" is subjective. What I will agree on, is that it was the most recent major landslide. Now this discussion is getting off topic. Gale5050 (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I am unable to see the point in this article, it accomplishes nothing and in earnest sounds relatively sympathetic to Ronald Reagan. AprilIsTrying 23:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Not a single substantial edit since 2019. Even moving it to draftspace would be a waste of time. GeeJayK (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I'm sure Flandres and/or Plutocow would love to expand the article. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
If either of them actually posts here indicating that they really will expand the article, I will consider changing my vote to keep. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 12:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Flandres does not want to expand.Gale5050 (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

You know, if the majority of the RW mob didn't topic-ban me, perhaps I could've expanded these types of stubs so that they wouldn't get nominated for deletion. Just saying. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
You can always appeal it. Gale5050 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Expand them with inaccurate garbage like you usually do? It's better to just delete them at that point.-Flandres (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Wah wah, don't get topic banned in the first place. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 22:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
That's not entirely fair to say. Gale5050 (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
In this case, if you knew the context? Yes, it is.-Flandres (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Personally, I believe no one should be discriminated against for any type of sanction, block or other negative action against them. Hence, LGM's comment is still inappropriate. Gale5050 (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
User gotta earn their respect back. I haven't seen it. I just remember them for bad takes and citing things like Heritage Foundation (such as in this riveting intellectual discourse in Fun talk:Mississippi) and not really understanding the issue with those takes. Sure, RWRW, a mod, started as an obnoxious dolt who was way more annoying than you and has a more than a few takes I'd consider bad, but they took effort to get trust back and ended up as a mod people like. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 03:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Maya Forstater | Result: Deleted[edit]

Maya Forstater – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

A nobody who became a free speech martyr amongst a largely online reactionary community after a British court ruled that that something they’d said constituted hate speech; We’ve seen how this goes, if this article isn’t deleted now it’ll be deleted shortly after she leaves the news cycle which won’t take long. Article is also poorly written, far too angry.
@AMassiveGay pointed out that she successfully appealed the court ruling recently. Would only take a sentence to fix but it’s worth mentioning as the article currently doesn’t. Christopher (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Total nobody. The article focuses heavily on her Twitter account, which has very little engagement. Not worth keeping. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Monet ^Ye 20:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Not particularly interesting to the site. 主要行事月 (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This anti="TERF" orthodoxy is seriously lacking in nuance. It seems to seldom be the most interesting or significant fact about the people we hang the label on, and we end up making a directory of people for which this is the only point of our article. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 09:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This thing started out as a redirect with significantly more information on another page. Turn it back into that. Techpriest (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to TERF. Person has no notability outside of TERF discourse. Celeste (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Considering she is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, I wouldn't say she is a nobody. She is also in this news source from 12/18/2019, showing she has been in the news for 18 months. I think she is notable enough to say. Would say delete if not expanded within a year though.Gale5050 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It won’t be expanded within a year, I can guarantee that. Christopher (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It's on the extreme lower edge for what I say could be kept as it is. Gale5050 (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by the implied argument "If someone is notable enough for Wikipedia, they are notable enough for us.". Wikipedia has articles on many people who we wouldn't - and vice-versa.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Her case is notable, she isn't. Techpriest (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, then the article could be transformed to one on her case. Also, Wikipedia gets rid of non notable storms. For example on the tropical cyclones WikiProject we got rid of storms like Humberto of 1995, Tropical Depression One of 2009, and they also merged other articles such as Rene of 2020 which I actually went out against. Articles are deleted all the time for not being notable, she is. -Gale5050 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The TERF article already has a large section on the case. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 12:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

This article started as a redirect to Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism#Forstater_Case. The Forstater case seems to be more important than Forstater herself since it appears to be based around a lot of core rethoric about TERFism in the UK (which is a real problem). I propose just turning this into a redirect and I'll probably end up doing that if whomever is enacting this doesn't do it. Techpriest (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Anki Gerhardsen | Result: Deleted[edit]

Anki Gerhardsen – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Article says nothing about what kind of impact this person has had, only that they have said some dumb stuff in the past. Most damningly, subject's Twitter account (which this article's author tends to view as impactful) has only 1,356 followers. I can find no other evidence of public engagement with the subject. In other words, a total nobody and not worth an article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
In a time when TERFs are becoming more prominent outside of the internet, I feel it would be best to focus our efforts on the ones who organize rallies, influence policy, etc. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I still have no idea who this person is meant to be after reading the article. Christopher (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Monet ^Ye 20:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I am going to get pushback for voting to keep the other one and delete this, but it's lack of an article on Wikipedia, plus the lack of notability here, forces me to vote keep on that and delete on this. -Gale5050 (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Lacks notability. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 21:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The Aftenposten search function is shit, but the first ten or so Gerhardsen columns it returns don't suggest she's a prolific transphobe, or even that much of a bigot. Some mild reactionary chuntering about identity politics, free speech, the 'rona, #metoo, etc., but registering in nano-Coulters. Rapidly losing faith in this editor as any kind of reliable narrator. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Purge with fire. 主要行事月 (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

She does have a pitiful number of followers on Twitter, which would be grounds for deletion if that was the extent of her fame. However, she also has a Norwegian Wikipedia page (Anki Gerhardsen) that has been edited by several people from 2018-2021. Bongolian (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article that doesn’t mention transphobia or trans people in any capacity, despite our article making it seem like that’s her entire focus (less so than it did before I removed some irrelevant stuff about the WHRC which is present in most of Takveis’ articles, but it’s still the case). Christopher (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
In addition, that's on Norwegian Wikipedia, but what really matters is English Wikipedia. Gale5050 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Leaning keep, partially because of the disgruntled bon who keeps posting slander and character assassination nonsense on the main article and talk page and seems to have a personal vendetta against the articles creator. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Anna Kathrine Eltvik | Result: Deleted by author[edit]

Anna Kathrine Eltvik – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

A minor Norwegian politician who happens to be a TERF. Used to be on a city council and a feminist spokesperson for a small far left political party, now on some committee in another left-wing party. 285 Twitter followers, doesn’t have an article on the Norwegian Wikipedia and isn’t even mentioned once, no article on the English Wikipedia. No reason to have an article on this person.
I should mention I did remove quite a bit of content from the page before nominating it for deletion, check the fossil record for my reasoning and to see the old text. Christopher (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Regretful delete, as no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Gale5050 (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
all articles from this author/user should be deleted. the merits of each article can be discussed if they are to re submitted AMassiveGay (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Tina Skotnes | Result: Author Self-Deleted[edit]

Tina Skotnes – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Article barely mentions it’s subject after the lede, instead focusing on the WHRC which we already have an article on. Claims she’s a founding member because she signed their manifesto Christopher (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: She signed their founding document as the third signatory on the day of its creation, so it's reasonable to regard her as a founder (she is also very active in their FB groups etc.), and has a long track record from a more established radfem group where she for example invited Bindel six years ago. However the article mainly discusses the organization, material that is covered elsewhere, so I agree that isn't enough individual material for a stand-alone article. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Author self-deleted. Techpriest (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Fun:Tramp Stamps | Result: Moved to essayspace[edit]

Fun:Tramp Stamps – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Mostly exists to be some sort of jab at some internet drama of yesteryear. And isn't even funny. 主要行事月 (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
It's actually current Tiktok drama bullshit, apparently from an Internet mob that has discovered that (gasp!) commercial music is commercial or something. It definitely doesn't belong here. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Preachy, not funny, incomprehensible to most RW readers (including me). Christopher (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what this is about. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
To quote The Stooges, "No Fun". Bongolian (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Baffling. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 23:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Eh, doesn't make sense here. Probably not even suited for Uncyclopedia. Celeste (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
...What. Non-missional, non-notable and too "lol random" even for funspace. - Linneris (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
~~Yeah. Not very good.Gale5050 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)~~ Moving to Keep. Gale5050 (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

~~Is there any question?~~Vote stricken in view of Bob's keep vote Scream!! (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Not funny; just plain stupid. Also used "dyslexic" as an insult along with appearing to stereotype LGBTQ people as dying their hair and getting radicalized by tankies, which didn't sit well with me. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Halloween!}🎃CircularR asoning🎃^{See what I'm planning} 03:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Monet ^Ye 05:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Natsuki Marx (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Okay, okay, can I defend myself? First, I thought that the point of Fun articles was to have a little fun and shitpost. This page has about as much value as Fun: Dr. Bronner's Soap. Second, in some respects I think this article serves a little value, that being to point out the hypocrisy of a industry plant punk band who ignored the inherent progressivism and social justice aspects of feminist punk and instead boiled it down to an aesthetic which they wore quite poorly. Either way, I wrote it just to get it off of my chest, because as a person who at least knows more than one riot grrrl band nothing boils my blood quite like fake punks. And in terms of being incomprehensible, A, Fun: Dr. Bronner's Soap, and B, I intentionally wrote it that way. It's meant to resemble 2009 taco pancakes rawr Tumblr speak, which in my head was a subtle jab at the Tramp Stamps, who tried to claim they knew anything about Tumblr but didn't even recognize SuperWhoLock. Also, I'd hate to let an hour's worth of work and learning basic HTML go to waste. TheJakeHolmesVersion (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
There are absolutely no no standards for funspace (apart from obvious legal or discriminatory stuff) and and thus no basis on which to propose a deletion. If we want to go deleting funspace articles then we would first need to set some standards.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
We’ve deleted a lot of fun pages over the years, some of them simply because they weren’t funny, which isn’t in unreasonable standard even if it isn’t spelt out explicitly anywhere. Christopher (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
That is undeniably true. Whether those deletions were legitimate could be debated, but it's certainly a precedent. On the other hand, by no means all the "delete" votes above have "not funny" as a delete reason. Even assuming that that was a legitimate reason - because "being funny" is not a requirement of a funspace article.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC) 0
Bob M has the right of it - hadn't thought of that before.Scream!! (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Per Scream. Although any redirects from main space should be deleted. -Gale5050 (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Funspace rolls differently...-Flandres (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I've read their marketing. This article reads almost exactly like their marketing. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Per Bob. Techpriest (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Per Bob and GC. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I haven't got a problem with it. Spud (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't really see a reason to delete. Plutocow (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

I sort-of get it, but it's not very funny unless (perhaps) you're into this particular niche. I'd have no problem with it in the essay space. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 00:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
2 Move to essayspace. It's hard to appreciate parody without some familiarity with what's being parodied. Obviously not a mainspace article, but too "interesting" not to save somewhere. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 02:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree on moving to Essayspace, with SoT's reasoning. (Along with how the original author, TheJakeHolmesVersion, is comparatively active compared to creators of other deleted articles) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a blog tier page, but deleting it is too much. GeeJayK (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Sort of changed my mind on this, essay space has worse, more off-mission things then what's here. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Since TheJakeHolmesVersion is here, would his agreeing to move the page to Essay space negate the AFD? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm alright with that. TheJakeHolmesVersion (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Havent got an issue with it in this case, but I don’t like the trend of sticking any pet project of someone’s that gets afd’d in essayspace. Imo you want something to be an essay you should make it an essay from the start. Other people voting for essayfication without input from the creator doesn’t make sense. Christopher (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a matter of effort and care for me. This article is apparently a labor of love for its original author, who put a fair othamount of work into it. I'm reluctant to destroy anything like that, at leas if it isn't obviously libellous or otherwise troubling, Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 13:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It's obviously not an essay. It's not written as an essay. It makes no argument or presents some point of view which invites debate. We had a pile of stuff like this back in RW2. Funspace was specifically created to be repository (AKA dumping ground) for weird stuff which did not fit into the new somewhat more serious wiki.

Essay space was created to give editors somewhere to present controversial opinions which would not fit into main-space, to give them a protected area to present their particular protected view on a main-space topic or whatever.

If this belongs anywhere it's where it is now - funspace.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

So, what do we do now that keep in some form has more votes which are split between two options? The majority of votes cast were not "delete."-Flandres (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a funspace article. Not an essay article. Techpriest (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
This has a 9-7-5 plurality to delete, followed by keep and then merge. What happens if no option cracks 50%+1 (i.e. a majority)? Gale5050 (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Make that 11-10-5. As a general rule it seems a majority does want the article kept, however this seems to come with unclarity of those who want it in essayspace or those who can think it's in funspace. The vote for delete/keep in some form is 11-15. Not sure what the best way forward is. Personally, I'm inclined to say "majority kept, majority keep as is versus essayspace so keep article as is" but YMMV. Techpriest (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It's an odd case but I would also argue that the majority is "not delete". And of the "not delete" votes the majority "keep as is". So that would also be my solution.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Lucia Eggenhoffer | Result: Deleted[edit]

Lucia Eggenhoffer – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

According to the article she’s best known for trolling people on Twitter, but she has less than 4000 Twitter followers. Article is also poorly written but I think the complete lack of notability is more important here, why have an article on her and not one of the thousands of similar accounts? Christopher (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, we really don’t need an article on every random TERF. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Completely irrelevant twitter troll. Unless she has news coverage which the article doesn't suggest she has, this article will not likely be relevant to our interests. Begone I say. Techpriest (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Lacks notability. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
"Needless to say the entirety of her existence is dedicated to the war on transgender people..." is my new favourite Poe. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
it would take some superhuman feat of fuckery to make a troll on twitter noticeable, let alone notable. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
We used to often say, "A nobody with a blog is still a nobody." A nobody with a Twitter account is hardly even worth thinking about. Spud (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Wait, when did RationalWiki suddenly turn into TwitterDramaWiki? Subject is about as notable as my youtube channel, whose only content to date is a video of my younger, dumber self intentionally installing malware on a virtual machine I used to have, a reupload of a deceased channel's video I liked that I had luckily youtube-dl'd, along with 2 videos that were so cringe, I have since made them both private. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Halloween!}🎃CircularR asoning🎃^{See my latest prototypes} 05:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

She is highly active as an explicit TERF/transphobe on Twitter where her entire activity is focused on direct and extreme attacks on trans people, frequently retweeted by the main TERF groups. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
But that's not a high bar to cross is it? --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 05:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

If that's the criteria for inclusion on this wiki, then why stop at this lady? Why not create articles for the better part of all cisgender Englishwomen over 50 who purport to be feminists? If you're some random, attention-seeking TERF on some glorified digital madhouse screeching about how all trans women are evil because some trans girl bullied you in school then you just don't deserve the free clout from a RationalWiki article- even if many other skeptics may have sadly been turned off by the moonbat brigading of our site a few months ago. While I've spent much of the past half-month since the end of my self-imposed educational leave working alongside you in your mostly-constructive contributions to our big articles on TERFs and sex-negative feminists with a smile on my face, your recent behavior and morbid obsession with random e-TERFs and mildly problematic messages from obscure British aristocrats on Twitter are fast making me lose all my respect for you... --Goatspeed. _{Happy Halloween!}🎃CircularR asoning🎃^{See my latest prototypes} 06:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

How relevant is this person in the real world? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
She appears to be influential in the TERFosphere on Twitter. While she only has about 4,000 followers directly, her reach is greater because she is so active (nearly 20,000 tweets all dedicated to attacking trans people) and because of her apparent position as an 'authority' of some kind within the largest TERF groups such as WHRC and LGB Alliance that claim to be active in numerous countries. I see her constantly in the feeds of those organizations and other prominent TERFs with larger followings. She also readily identifies herself as a TERF via the dogwhistles in her profile and the content she posts and promotes. CharlotteTakveis (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Twitter isn't the real world. Outside of morons like Trump, people don't base policies off tweets. They base policies off activist groups, media scandals, international pressures, etc. So I'll ask again, how relevant is this person in the real world? How much policy does she actually affect? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
This is one of my minor articles that I didn't spend that much time on. If others believe significance on Twitter isn't enough to be notable here, that's fine by me. Having direct influence on policy is a rather high bar, though. CharlotteTakveis (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Is it? Tucker Carlson, while not a power broker or politician has influence on policy. Same with Murdock and his media empire. They have effect. We don't have articles on half the YouTube talking heads who imitate these figures for a reason, and that reason is most of them don't have any real effect. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you could have a brief list of Twitter assholes on your user subpages or essayspace. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 23:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Kishwer Falkner | Result: Deleted[edit]

Kishwer Falkner – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

(Continuation of discussion started by @AMassiveGay on the article’s talkpage). Falkner isn’t a TERF, she’s someone who made a few vaguely transphobic “both sides must be heard” comments in an interview a month ago. This article is completely insane. Christopher (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
AgreeAMassiveGay (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Per the talk page, living persons must be handled with care. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 16:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Having read the article in question, I agree that it is very stupid. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Article's case is pretty weak. Subject is more comparable to the likes of Joe Manchin (a known fence sitter and abuser of the balance fallacy) here in the US than an out-and-out reactionary. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Per AMGs talkpage comment and Chris's AfD comment. Needs either massive rework (which I'm not gonna be doing) or it needs to go for being a potential BLP disaster. Techpriest (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Hyperbolic guff. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
As others have said, this article makes a bunch of pretty damn serious accusations with very little context, and its only proof for this person being a TERF is one disingenuous tweet of hers. And also, I'm curious as to what types of "bigotry against Muslims" the laws she opposed would seek to prevent. Did they try to prevent actual acts of bigotry, or were they blasphemy laws 2.0 that attempted to ban anything that could potentially offend them? Context please. We as a site should not be in the business of taking the word of a few haughty twitter keyboard warriors at face-value, a la Catgrrl- especially if they're trying to "cancel" a living person. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Halloween!}🎃CircularR asoning🎃^{See my experiments} 03:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Let's not be home to what we know is libel. Spud (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete it and prepare for a massive cleanup. All of this author's articles is a recycling of a couple of paranoid and fanatic assumptions, which is desperately trying to tie random people to islamophobia, neo-Nazis and holocaust-deniers, with very unconvincing arguments and unverifiable claims. I think the issue here is more problematic than this one article, as the same desperate points are repeated by this author several places. The author has carpet bombed rational wiki with un-satirical, unverifiable claims, implicating many living persons, and I know several of these names are taking steps to sue for defamation. Not only should this article be deleted, but all of the authors articles should be revised, because you will get sued. For instance, stickers with "adult human female" is not a "hate crime". The author unironically suggests this several places. The unsatirical, unironic misinformation typed out by this author is simply too many to list. Cellular (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

This is an appropriately sourced article on a high-profile politician and government official, in fact the most high profile person in UK government to explicitly support TERF ideology who is now the hero of all TERFs on Twitter, second only to JK Rowling. It is important to consider that she is now also head of the commission in charge of trans-related government policy, which makes her transphobic comments far more important than if she hadn't been put in charge of running the government's commission tasked with preventing transphobia.
All the factual statements in the article, including her comments and other activities, are appropriately sourced and initially based on an article in Pink News, supplemented by other sources. Whether she can be described as a TERF is a matter of interpretation and analysis (which is part of our mission), and the article makes a solid case for such a description. It is entirely false that she has made "a few vague" comments (she has made very strong comments ++) or that she "doesn't merit an article" (she is a member of the House of Lords, and now the most high profile UK figure to voice problematic views on trans people second to Rowling). Alas, this article has been attacked by an editor most concerned with whitewashing Boris Johnson based on the spurious idea that she isn't a public figure, and based on entirely false claims about the content of this appropriate, adequately sourced and correct article. The talk page is rife with insane comments, personal attacks and entirely false claims about the article's content, which I why I don' participate there. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
none that is actually true AMassiveGay (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

[EC]Blatant hypocrisy to avoid talkpage discussion (which is why this escalated to an AfD) because of “personal attacks” then characterise AMassiveGay as “mod concerned with whitewashing Boris Johnson”.

What has JK Rowling got to do with this? You’re far too interested in the activities of TERFs on Twitter, and the end result is shit like this (quote from the article):

"women", the term TERFs use when referring to TERFs

She hasn’t made very strong comments in support of TERF ideology, just standard fencesitter stuff. I’m sure someone could write a good article on her as she is a prominent government figure, but it would need to be much, much less focused on this one interview, and they’d be better off starting from scratch. Christopher (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
No, it's not at all not "standard fencesitter stuff", and particularly not for the person in charge of running government policy in this area. That's entirely wrong and the article explains why. Also, the false claims about the article that this nomination is explicitly based on ("Continuation of discussion started by @AMassiveGay") were explicitly based on the false idea that she is some obscure private person who doesn't merit an article at all. Also, you have taken that "women" comment entirely out of context, she is explicitly discussing Maya Forstater, the notorious TERF fired for being transphobic, in the context of her voicing transphobic views, when claiming she is representative of women. This is a well-known tactic of TERFs and an odd use of language in any case. The talk page contains entirely insane ramblings and no reasonable editor would engage with that sort of comments. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
[EC]Anyone reading the discussion knows that wasn’t the point being made. I guarantee you can’t point to one thing she said in that interview that was more than a vague platitude, you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. Christopher (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
You either haven't read the article at all, or you aren't familiar with trans issues. Your claims about her comments are wrong. They are strong (it's not just one vague comment), exceptional given her position, part of a politicization of the commission as her predecessor noted, and have generated a ton of controversy and made her an icon in TERF circles. The things she says are very similar to what the comparable Norwegian government official called hate speech just earlier this year. In the TERF article we have an entire section on why the UK is called TERF Island. Also a reminder that TERF isn' a slur but merely a description of someone's views, and in fact the article is quite cautious in highlighting primarily how she lends TERF groups/individuals/ideas credence, an undisputed fact (who would dispute that Forstater is a TERF?) --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
As someone from the UK I can tell you her interview barely made the headlines, for her trans comments or anything else. I don’t doubt it was discussed a lot on TERF Twitter, but I don’t see why anyone should care about that. Googling her name to see if it did make the headlines and I just missed it gave me this, a vaguely anti-transphobic comment she made more recently. This is someone who doesn’t care about transgender people at all and has decided to play both sides,, not a committed ideologue. Christopher (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Most British media are known to be transphobic and not really suitable for assessing the impact of her views. International or specialized sources such as Pink News are more suitable for assessing her comments in this area. Perhaps it's true that she isn't a committed ideologue, but it's a fact that she has used her role on the commission to lend such ideas credence, which has a far greater impact than some random TERF. It's felt in other countries, in Norway, the US and elsewhere TERF groups such as WHRC and LGB Alliance hail her as a hero and insist we must have the same policies and views on trans people that she spearheads in the UK. (I first became aware of her, as a person not from the UK, when she was massively touted by WHRC as a role model for other countries in regard to anti-trans policies). --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
A bunch of TERF groups making a big deal about nothing is no reason for we us to do the same. The entire article is dedicated to one controversy that you’re personally more interested in, it’s ridiculous. Christopher (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec)how about the idea that it doesnt warrant an article because most of is actually false and is in fact most disingenuous he said/she said nonsense. the accusations of racism and of islamophobia are just plain wrong and do not reflect any of her actual statements, which are alluded to in the most accusatory and damning language but never actually quoted in the article and with none of the context of what and why she was commenting in the first place. the 'sources' do not either and most do not support the claims being made in the article. also she is not in charge of government policy in this area, the ehrc does not decide government policy. it enforces compliance with the human rights act. i note i only noticed this article because initially it described the current tory government as 'far right' which is patently bullshit so i removed it. is been expanded considerably since then with so much more bullshit with the terf stuff going off into deep end and is little more getting on ones soapbox than providing any real evidence in support of the grossly exaggerated and fabricated claims of bigotry from a fucking true believerAMassiveGay (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
This is nonsense. The material on her comments and actions regarding racism and Islamophobia are directly based on the cited sources, both of which are serious/reliable. The article doesn't contain any original analysis in this area, and doesn't even elaborate much on this topic. I've only included it since it was mentioned in articles about her TERFy comments. It is entirely reasonable to describe the policies of Johnson's party and its general alignment now following its rightward drift as far right (at least to some degree; it's certainly not centre-right or conservative as other Western Europeans understand those terms), and several scholars have done that. In fact your attempt to normalize Johnson is very problematic. The Tory Party is in fact allied on the European level with parties widely regarded as far-right, a much-discussed fact. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
the tories sit with a group of unsavoury far right parties in the council of europe because the tories have always sat with unsavoury characters in europe. the other groups were all decidedly untory pro europeans, sitting with those groups or on their own means they wont have a voice at the only seat in europe we still have, while now it means their voice will be heard and put tories onn the council in line for rapporteur roles. it a question of having influence or having none at all. im not sure what can actually be achieved at the council of europe these days but there you go. its not actual tory policy, has not influenced tory policy or reflects tory policy in any way. its a marriage of convenience that has no effect on the tories in the uk because it is in europe and the right in the uk dont care for europe at all and actually far from 'much dicsussed' but barely mentioned. there would have to be an official statement otherwise, and thats to be avoided at all costs. you are playing up the significance because you have a shallow understanding of what is going on and the sole evidence for being far right is a pragmatic alignment that doesnt endorse or advance a far right agenda. but that is neither here nor there for this article. i will address the 'directly based on the cited sources' claim in another post. its going to be a long one. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
The description of the rightward drift and chauvinist, far-right stance of the Tory Party under Johnson aka 'Britain Trump' isn't just based on their alliances in European political bodies with parties literally described by many (even British) sources as neo-Nazis[19] (although that in itself says a lot – how can you ally yourself with neo-Nazis instead of conservatives [aka the European People's Party] without being reasonably considered far-right?), but on their anti-immigrant and racist policies and views as well. They are in many respects more extreme than Alternative for Germany in their statements regarding immigrants, nationalism etc, and Alternative for Germany is described as far-right. So how can AfD be far-right but not the even more explicitly anti-immigrant, Islamophobic etc. Tories, who are in fact allied with many 'AfD-like' parties? --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
the conservatives have always been opposed to immigration. its not that position on its own that makes a group far right. afd has more overt nationalist views, its islamophobia is more naked, more extreme. they are anti feminist. anticommunist. the links to the extreme far right are more concrete than just joining a parliamentary group. you think the tories are more extreme than these people? you are clueless. the tories letting them into their club is just bad optics which dont matter because the story has no traction in the uk. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about the UK. You complained about me describing the Johnson government as far-right. That is a descriptor that I stand by, that is justified and reasonable in my opinion as an observer looking at Britain from a mainstream Western European position, and it's not like I'm the only person in the world who believes that the Tories aren't simply a 'conservative' or 'centre-right' party as they claim, descriptors that in my book belong to Merkel and similar non-racist politicians. I'm prepared to say that they can legitimately at best be viewed as a right-wing populist party with far-right elements, but personally I consider them to be far-right. That the UK is a kind of Hungary in terms of LGBT is merely one of many examples of how the UK is out of touch with Western Europe and progressive Americans. CharlotteTakveis (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘[EC]Your personal opinion and what you’re prepared to say is irrelevant, you’ve demonstrated a very superficial knowledge of UK politics. If you’re really “not concerned about the UK”, then stop writing about it. Christopher (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
and while we are all here, lets talk about sources. the accusation of being a terf, expressing terf talking points, and the accusation of racism, denying the existence of structural racism and support for a much decried report on racism are all found in the one article from pink news. its unfortunate that its clockbait headline was mistaken to be the an accurate representation of her views because the article quotes her (something entirely absent from our article) clarifying more specifically and accurately her views were about a freedom of belief. its unfortunate that this pink news article was given all the heavy lifting when this pink news more effectively explains the context of her statements more effectively, explaining the tribunal that prompted her to make them. our article repeats the original sources point of her saying nothing about the plight of trans people where as this second pink news article has her saying all about their plight, saying you not should not misgender or otherwise be shitty to trans people. shes says the ruling in the case that prompte her intervention i not and should not be seen as license to be transphobic. read the article - it debunks what little evidence there was for transphobia. everything concerning the delusional ramblings on her apparent terfdom is essentially unsupported and produced from whole cloth.

the racism thing is on even shakier ground. in the original source it is not supported. it alludes to her defending the aforementioned report on racism. the quote given is less a defensive and pleading not to be beastly to those who had put it together. it links to the furore but to nothing concerning falkner. it there just to imply she is an unrepentant bigot. it doesnt say that, but we do. we say she is 'apparently supportive of Boris Johnson on other issues as well' (no where is this suggested) and she denies there is systemic racism in the uk - it absolutely does not say this nor is there any evidence at all for this. it is a lie, pure and simple.

the accusations of islamophobia. the opposing of measures to counter islamophobia. 2 sources for this. still complete bullshit. the middleeasteye article is most useful providing all the relevent info. like the part where she, a muslim, opposed efforts to define islamophobia as a specific form of racism. she belives it is unnecessary with existing hate crime laws and that conflating race and religion is a mistake that is counter productive. read the source for the details. the source is very much anti ehrc but it does actually provide a lot of information, none of which supports the claims in our article for unabashed islamophobia because it isnt true. the henry jackson society links are in this source but they are weak links designed to malign and discredit by association. the 2nd source does not concern falkner but is embarrassingly partisan attack on the hjs. it has no value here except to really bring home the guilty by association vibe.

the source that involves david issac has him explaining the belief that the ehrc is being discredited via pressure from the government. he lays the all the blame on the government and does mention not falkner at all. all the other sources are dross in support of the constructed fantasy of a true believer has effectively buried whatever valid criticism there might have been. any credibility is under fire outset as appears the author does not seem to actually know what the ehrc is or what it does.

i mean terf island? ha AMassiveGay (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep the article. Not an obscure person. Reliable sources used. Article can always be revised. NorthWasNotTaken (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Strange choice of first edit. Unless you’re going to revise it yourself, you shouldn’t vote to keep a bad article on the grounds that someone else might make the effort to make it good, it rarely actually happens. Christopher (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Reluctantly, I am kind of on the fence. However, it can always be deleted later. I also disagree with it is a "bad article" - its not great but still passable. Not total garbage. -Gale5050 (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
it really is garbage. see above. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the article is shit. My favorite part is the completely random (and frankly offensive) allusion to to Jim Crow politicians in the US. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

What about all the other articles CharlottleTakveis has written? It’s very likely at least some of them are similarly libelous, but it’s impossible to tell as their subjects are largely Norwegian and unknown to anyone else. Christopher (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Karen Ingala Smith is Google-able and English. I would say this article takes a horribly imbalanced look at a legitimate issue that this article could explore (she's primarily known for running a domestic abuse shelter for women and other related activities, and I don't consider the issue of domestic abuse space safety, no matter which side you are on, to warrant such a Twitter-level "TERF!" shriek-fest.) It's the same with Holly Lawford-Smith. Her sin is this website which is concerned about the impact of transsexuals in women only spaces from a safety perspective. This is actually a thing I have with hardline trans activists: I do not consider the safety issue an illegitimate question, and think certain trans activists need to do a better job of actually addressing the fucking concerns instead of just lobbying "TERF! TERF" at everyone who raises these sorts of questions. My guess is most of the other articles from this user are similar. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Candlemakers' Petition | Result: Delete[edit]

Candlemakers' Petition – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Hopelessly off-mission. The author was a libertarian, I think he was trying to create entries for his ideology. GeeJayK (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not very good. It could be more missional with a more critical angle, but right now there's nothing to salvage. Plutocow (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Personally I'd say even on a critical angle it wouldn't be a good article. It's a classical text written 20 years before Marx published Das Kapital, so it doesn't even count as a source for modern studies except if you're into history of the economic thought. It's just as a curiosity that some people take too serious. GeeJayK (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Christopher (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
a stub created in 2010. in the time passed since it has remained a stub with the majority of activity in the fossil record concerning categories. its doubtful anyone has plans to expand at this point. start afresh in draft space if anyone is so inclined AMassiveGay (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The Other Wiki™ only has one line in Bastiat's page referencing the petition. If this was EconomyWiki or WorkersWiki or something I'd be more understanding. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Why must people try to misuse classical liberal thought to support their own views? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 19:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Bongolian (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Techpriest (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
—cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Not sure if I can have a 'move' option, but moving it to draftspace is best. Short yes, but it has room for potential and should be instead moved to draft space for now. Gale5050 (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
there is nothing to move to draft space. it not like we'd be deleting hours and hours of research and work. a paragraph and a half will lost, 5 minutes of someones time. and its easier to anew than work with a few sentences that would likely be rephrased, rearranged, and ultimately removed for anything more than a stub. any potential it may have has been untapped for the 10 years of existence. what makes you think anyone will be spurred to make something of this stub now? put it draft space and it will be untouched and forgotten for another 10 years, when someone spots and marks it for deletion only to be thwarted by 'has potential' or 'just needs expanding' every afd ever has potential, and just needs expanding. never usually explained what that potential might be or how it might be expanded. never usually anyone volunteering to do the work, whatever work turns out beAMassiveGay (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Also sysops have a way to see the deleted text for a while if there's some sudden renewal of interest. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with deleting old drafts, encuraging expansion is better IMO, though I can see it becoming stale. I disagree with Wikipedia's w:WP:G13 rule although will admit, in 10 years it should be deleted.Gale5050 (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
This isn’t Wikipedia. You have no understanding of how this wiki works. Christopher (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Mercantilism and protectionism are bad actually... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
True, but I'm not sure that this article's attempt to broaden the Candlemakers' Petition beyond the original anti-tariff and anti-protectionism scope is justified. (Frédéric Bastiat seemed to be libertarian, so I don't doubt he'd be in agreement to a large degree. But unlike some of today's hardcore libertarians Bastiat allowed a little bit of room for subsidies "under extraordinary circumstances", per his Wiki article. At any rate there is nothing really about subsidies in the Candlemakers' Petition.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@PanGalacticGargleBlaster Oh I understand and agree. I just wanted to make that point despite my delete vote. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Count Dankula | Result: Deleted[edit]

Count Dankula – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This article came very close (9:9) to being deleted last time it was nominated, with many people only voting keep because they thought it might improve. It hasn’t improved, and Count Dankula hasn’t become any less irrelevant. Christopher (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
still dogshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Nuke from orbit. 主要行事月 (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Sadly not notable. Gale5050 (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Still hasn't shown up that much on my online political sphere radar. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 12:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

^{— Unsigned, by: Monet / talk / contribs}

Not missional. Nobody need to think of the guy ever again. I feel sorry for his mom.UncleKrampus (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe not bad for a YouTube article, but it still sucks. GeeJayK (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I said I'd vote delete if it got nominated again. I'm a man of my word. Spud (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I'm still of the opinion that this article should be kept, but given the tally as of writing is 7-nil delete with absolutely none of the prior "Keep" voters appearing despite this AFD being up for several days, I doubt that would be the outcome. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a fine article to me. Natsuki Marx (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Didn't we go through this already? Plutocow (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
We tried to, but no consensus was reached. Christopher (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Admittedly, one user who voted delete last time is now permanently banned. Plutocow (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
it seemed to me to be understood that if there was no improvement to the existing article that would indicate there was anything to more to add or show anyone could be bothered we could take another look for afd. there was nothing added of worth, and no one could be arsed to even tidy up what is already there, so here we are. some were so convinced of its merits and its potential you'd think they would have brought more more to the article than to say he did some bad tweets. to be fair, there isnt anymore to add to the article, but no ones bothered to clean it up and make what is there pop despite championing its survival with such passion but such vacuous argument. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
He does at least have relevance to rationalwiki via his video on Xu Xiaodong, an MMA fighter in China struggling against both the government and the McDojo epidemic of that country. Dankula, Xiaodong and the former's video on the latter are all briefly mentioned on the main McDojo article, so we should probably keep Dankula' article at least so that people going into that otherwise-unoffensive video from the McDojo article will be warned beforehand that the guy who made it is an alt-righter. As it is, I've added a section to Dankula's article describing both the Xu Xiaodong video and his madlads series in general, since it was mentioned here that the article needs improving. And just to be clear, I do not share any of Meechan's political views, and haven't even watched any of his political videos.Skadooshbag (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The article could use some expansion, but is otherwise fine. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

I'm kind of leaning towards delete as I can see hardly any mission-relevance. But I see the last debate on this very subject was around four months ago. Shouldn't we have a cool-down period of at least a year between votes on articles? There could be a tendency for people who dislike articles to simply keep nominating them until the cards fall their way.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I would’ve waited a bit longer if the last result was keep, but in the event no consensus is reached I think waiting a bit less is justified. Christopher (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I can see that. And I honestly don't much care about this article one way or the other. It's the procedural question which interests me here. I think we should have a standardized "immunity from prosecution" period. If people express an interest I'll bring it up in CS.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

For now I think it can be handled on a case-by-case basis. In practice if you nominate an article repeatedly, when nothing’s changed and it was clear consensus was in favour of keep, the end result is that the vote is overwhelmingly delete and the afd is speedily closed, no harm done. Plus naming conventions limit things to two afds per year, and once you’ve had two in a year you can’t make a third without breaking them no matter how long you wait. Christopher (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess a question I would have is, "what is Youtube notable?" This wiki has a fair bit of (at first glance) non-notable Youtube pages. I mean, we have articles on people like Tara McCarthy and RageAfterStorm who pretty much have disappeared from the Internet after around 2018 or so, and really aren't notable outside their Internet circle. Or VenomFangX who disappeared even earlier, same with dprjones. You have people like C0nc0rdance who are a small skeptic Youtube channel, that's it. About 75% of this list has not had one mainstream-notable event that Count Dankula has had (I mean, even at a high level, who gives a fuck about someone like Shoe0nHead outside Youtube. And she's actually sort of Youtube-world notable.). Not that Count Dankula hasn't been notable since one blip in 2018, but a lot of these folks haven't even had that blip. So while I don't give a fuck about this article one way or another, it seems like our standards on "what is a good Youtuber article?" are pretty shit right now, and I'm a bit nonplussed about the way this AfD came up (BoNs leading to a guy who has pushed for an AfD pushing for another one). Seems like we've had a previous Youtuber purge but if this article is considered dogshit these days we really ought to look at some of the other ones. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on any of our articles about mediocre youtubers. I guess they were created when we had a user-base which was more into that medium? My inclination would be to purge most of them.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree the article is bad, but it's still more missional than almost any BreadTube article we have. Let's see:

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

Now, many BreadTubers qualify for 2 and 3, but the articles are 90% of praise with 10% of critics. If we delete this one (a critical article about a crank) I don't see any reason for not deleting a fortiori most of the BreadTubers articles too. GeeJayK (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you from starting deletion discussions for any of the "BreadTube" articles here. Each article should be judged on its own merit (or lack thereof) and we should not be considering mass deletion along the lines of "this article is shit so we should also delete all these others while we're at it." —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'll do that when I have time, but if I don't have support that would be just a waste of time I don't have. As the my drop of activity since May kinda shows, I unfortunately don't have to discuss anything controverisal right now. That's why I posted my opinion here. I'll probably make an AFD for Candlemakers' Petition and maybe Death toll of Christianity, but I'll probably stop there at least for now. GeeJayK (talk)

And in case I wasn't clear. I'm not supporting a mass purge in one single poll. Indeed, we should analyze the articles one by one. But as I said, I'm not going to do this myself, at least for now. GeeJayK (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that many of the so-called BreadTube articles are puff pieces and have questionable relevance here. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Can this dross finally die now? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

May 2021[edit]

Refrigerator mother | Result: Merged into autism page[edit]

Refrigerator mother – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

~~#A historical curiosity more than anything else. Not particularly good, interesting or missional. Gangster Computer God (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)~~

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Article isn’t great, but isn’t as bad as all the others from the same author that’ve been afd’d recently. It’s a largely discredited theory on the cause of a disability/medical condition/whatever you want to call it (which we’ve got plenty of), notable enough that Wikipedia has an article on it, and still has modern relevance even if it’s largely historical. Make it a subsection of autism#Causes and controversy, redirect the page itself there. Christopher (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
What Chris said. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
You know what? Chris is right. 天幕月 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Kevs ^Ping! 17:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Spud (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Sure. Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope and not amazing, but will keep the history intact for a future resurrection. -Gale5050 (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I'm voting for Goat, because I don't know what Goat does. Also, generic goat on a farm joke. It's Farmhand, BTW! (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Goat is the place to leave a comment without casting a vote or replying to anyone. Christopher (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
So, voting's overwhelmingly in favour of merge. Who shall do the honours (AKA I can't be bothered to do it myself)? 主要行事月 (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
It must be an admin. Gale5050 (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
No reason it needs to be a sysop, there’s no actual page moving involved, just moving text around. Christopher (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I have redirected the page, but I did not know what to merge so I am waiting for someone to do that. Gale5050 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I’d leave it as is unless you’re going to actually do the merging, you’ve probably reduced the chances of someone getting around to it (no longer in afd category). I’ll do it tomorrow if I remember. Christopher (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hélio Couto (português) | Result: Deleted[edit]

Hélio Couto (português) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

One of our Brazilian editors (@GeeJayK) told me he'd never heard of Hélio Couto, that there does not appear to be anything very special about Hélio Couto (that he's just one woo-;pushing con artist among hundreds of others), that none of the websites of any of the major Brazilian news outlets have anything about Hélio Couto and that articles about Hélio Couto have been deleted on the Portuguese Wikipedia three times. Spud (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Christopher (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 11:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Gangster Computer God (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Who? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Whom? It's Farmhand, BTW! (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Is this a Lenin reference? GeeJayK (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think so. It's Farmhand, BTW! (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
See my talk page. GeeJayK (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah he's not really known. So it makes sense. At the time I had met people that were his followers so I gathered some info about him. But he's really no one. It was frustrating to see how googling his name only showed the pseudoscience bs the guy teaches.Macgyversc 09:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

National Autistic Society | Result: 8 votes for delete in 24 hours, Deleted[edit]

National Autistic Society – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not missional (accusations of supporting pseudoscience are unfounded), closer to a bullet point list than an article. All of the citations which link to the organisation’s website are dead, and half of the rest are blog/youtube links (the first is a tweet from the author). Inexplicably criticises the organisation for making videos featuring “a white/white passing person”. Christopher (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Put it out of its misery. Gangster Computer God (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
its arseAMassiveGay (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunatey, I think there's little hope for most of the articles written by this user. I don't think they've acted in bad faith. If they've stayed for longer, they could've learned better how to write a RW article. But I think it's common here to mistake RW's non-neutral POV with just expressing your personal views while writing an article. GeeJayK (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 22:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Needs a rewrite. Celeste (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Not a good treatment of the subject. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

It's not horrible. Gale5050 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

How many more autism articles are we going to keep removing? It's poorly written but it can be revamped. Just put it in the draftspace oven. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 17:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The author (who wrote a lot of bad autism articles, hence all the AfDs) has left the site; if it’s moved to draftspace, it’ll sit there forever and eventually get deleted anyway. The entire basis for writing this article is that the org failed to acknowledge an unsuccessful change.org petition, it’s off-mission as well as being poorly written. Christopher (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
it being poorly written is not the main problem with page. the main problem is it is mostly bullshit AMassiveGay (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Goat? It's Farmhand, BTW! (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Science of Discworld | Result: Contents merged into the Terry Pratchett article and page turned into a redirect to Terry Pratchett#Science of Discworld[edit]

Science of Discworld – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Doesn’t seem missional. Christopher (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I would say, "Merge into Terry Pratchett." But since it's entirely unreferenced, I'll say delete instead. Spud (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Spud is right, on this occasion. Avida Dollars^{her again} 12:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Avida Dollars I see what you did there. Spud (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Wholly unsourced, doesn’t have much to say, not wholly coherent (for instance, who are “the wizards” in the last paragraph?). 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 15:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
-Flandres (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
doesnt do a whole lot for you than would get from reading the blurb on the back of a book AMassiveGay (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

If there's any information worth retaining, move it to Terry Pratchett and call it a day. Kauri0.o (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Seems like it would be more useful on Terry Pratchett, which is a much more likely search term, and it's easily short enough to merge. The books seem to discuss some missional topics, but I've not read any. --Annanoon (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Kevs ^Ping! 06:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Generally don’t like full on deletion, but yeah, this article gotta go. Gale5050 (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gale5050 Did you mean to vote delete? Christopher (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
No, because I like the history to remain intact, @Christopher. I don't like full on delete unless its really unmergeable or the hstory has nothing meaningful.Gale5050 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 16:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Essay-Hastur! (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Merge into Pratchett. Bongolian (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep Revolverman (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Revolverman It looks like you've put your vote in the wrong place. This is the Merge/redirect section. Spud (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I mean keep in a merge, doesn't need its own page, but the info is good. Sorry! Revolverman (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Scream!! (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I didn’t explain myself very well, as I thought this would be a clear-cut delete. Others have already mentioned some issues (unreferenced, doesn’t make sense if you haven’t read the Discworld series) but I’ll add a few more: the series is already mentioned briefly in Terry Pratchett, and (from what I remember of reading at least one of them a while back), the article exaggerates the books’ relevance to the mission considerably, they contained some commentary on vaguely missional issues like a lot of Pratchett’s books but it wasn’t the focus. This was written by a fan who just wanted an excuse to have more Pratchett related content on the wiki. Christopher (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Although I've read the books and enjoy the Discworld series (including the early Science of Discworld series) Terry Pratchett honestly isn't terribly missional IMHO. Maybe a couple of books that touch on exploring corruption of power in religion, but that's kinda it. Science of Discworld actually is slightly more missional due to the exploration of evolution in one book. They both seem very suitable for funspace though. (See Monty Python for a similar situation with a British humorist.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Peter Lipták | Result: Keep because reason for deletion was invalid[edit]

Peter Lipták – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Article written in another language, appears to be some sort of self promotional material. Gale5050 (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Article created by user who has created a number of articles in the same language. A quick look on Google translate suggests that the article is not promotional, and the long edit history of the creator suggests that they are not the same person as the subject. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Serene is right. The reason for deletion is invalid. But this article does bring up another minor problem that I will talk about below. Spud (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

I strongly feel that articles in languages other than English shouldn't have titles that are just somebody's name. We should always follow the example of David Icke (français) and include the name of the language in parentheses. And that's even if there isn't an equivalent articlle about the person in English. After this is over and the article is kept, I will move it to Peter Lipták (slovensky). I would also move Hélio Couto to Hélio Couto (português) but I can't produce the character ê on my Taiwanese keyboard.

I would also very much prefer all articles in other languages to be translations of articles that already exist in English. Creating the two articles, one in English and one in the other language, at the same time would be OK. That should prevent things like this AfD from happening and also prevent people from creating pages in other languages that would be instantly deleted for being hopelessly off-mission if they were written in English.

Anyway, I'm going to add hatnotes to all non-English articles that don't have English equivalents saying what language they're in. That's in the hope of preventing people who come to them by clicking on random article from saying, "What the hell is this crap?" Spud (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Mikeysock | Result: Deleted[edit]

Template:Mikeysock – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Gives undue attention to a troll who is looking for it. Also has the inadvertent effect of creating a greatest hits of said troll. Just use the sock template if its really needed, but seriously, mikemikev is obvious enough for this to be unwarranted. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 17:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Not worth the bother. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I explained my reasoning in more detail at Template talk:Mikeysock a while ago. This template should go, and every page which exists solely to transclude it should be deleted. Christopher (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Whoever created this seems to be ignorant of troll behaviour. Furthermore, this recent obsession with templates screams of "fuck all else to do". —Commit it to the flame!—Leucippus^Talk 18:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
From orbit. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:DENY, which kinda applies here too - do not give extra attention. Gale5050 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 21:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

It's useful to tag Michael Coombs' socks since he impersonates and blames his accounts onto innocent people.2001:BF0:666:0:0:0:0:666 (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Don't be absurd. Simply revert or delete, block, and move on, same as with any other troll. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Problem solved[edit]

I've turned the template into a redirect to Template:Banned. This means that we no longer give undue attention to this troll by giving him his own template but don't have to remove the template from all the pages it's on already. Spud (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I really think you should've asked the community about that decision. I want those userpages deleted, and it was expressed in another afd that a bot can easily mass delete those. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 00:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Link to the other AfD. If Sirius goes ahead with the bot, it seems like the bot will rock RW's socks off. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This was definitely closed prematurely. Christopher (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't realize that you wanted all the user pages deletes as well. I have now deleted all the pages that the Mikeysock template was on and I have deletes the template itself. Spud (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Kensock | Result: Deleted[edit]

Template:Kensock – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Ken is annoying. That doesn't mean he needs his own template. Use the regular sock template instead, it works well. All this does is give Ken incentive to sock more. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Pointless. Christopher (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
From orbit. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
From orbit? It's the only way to make sure. —Leucippus^Talk 20:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Fuckin' A! Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
DENY. Gale5050 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 21:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Revert, block, move on. Delete user page if the troll does create a user page. Don't waste time with page creation, please, it only feeds the troll more. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 00:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
For the reasons stated above. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

It's going to be a hassle to remove all those pages of those socks if this template gets deleted Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 19:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s not that much of a hassle, and Sirius could get Inferno Bot to do it automatically. Christopher (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Correct, I can detemplate it and remove stuff if needed pretty easily. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 21:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Why does this site keep creating pages that ultimately get nominated for deletion??? Also, does anyone know when the second episode of the Goomba revolution will be released?????? Unclescrooge (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Problem solved[edit]

I've turned this template into a redirect to Template:Banned. This means that we no longer give undue attention to this troll by giving him his own template but don't have to remove it from all the pages it's on already. Spud (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"Olé! Olé! Olé!" - everyone who voted for deletion. --RWRW (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ideally the userpages should be deleted. Red link those socks, please. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 00:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. What benefit is there from marking the userpages of sockpuppets that make 1 or 2 insta-reverted edits? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would be neater. I think the redirecting is fine as a quick fix, but if Sirius is still motivated to do the bot-driven deletion rampage, that would be ideal for both templates. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It's better than a specific Ken or Mike template, but it still results in the creation of a fuckload of redundant userpages for no obvious purpose. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I’ve deleted all the transclusions manually, mikeysock will have to wait. Christopher (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't realize that you wanted all the user pages it was on to be deleted as well. Spud (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Oliver D.Smith | Result: Deleted[edit]

Draft:Oliver D.Smith – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

He is a complete and utter nobody. The only reason for this page to exist is to celebrate pointless drama that is best forgotten. Not only will having an article about his arch-nemesis encourage Mikemikev to come here even more often, it will only encourage Smith himself to sock up again. And he's already a big-headed fucking turd. We don't need to make him feel more important. Spud (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Complete nobody, no one on this wiki would’ve heard of him if he didn’t interact with the site personally. Christopher (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
So like...beyond rationalwiki what does this guy do that merits an article?-Flandres (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need for an article on this person here. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Insignificant subject. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 15:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. -Gale5050 (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Dipose and disinect. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 16:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like a vandal shrine to me. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I noticed it was deleted, but there's actually Lots of crank magnetism and fringe-beliefs you can dig up on the guy. Smith thinks Troy was located at a different site to Hisarlik, rejecting the archaeological consensus (he has a paper preprint not yet passed peer-review while he published another paper last year in an ultra-low tier undergrad journal), he disagrees with the mainstream Out of Africa hypothesis for human evolution, he writes on geo-mythology and many of his writings on that subject can be described at best as fringe and speculative, while many of his cryptozoology writings are skeptical, some of his views are more fringe such as a 2019 conference paper in which he argues "pseudo-Neanderthals" i.e. individual humans with ~5% Neanderthal DNA could be the basis of wildmen and satyrs in classical Greek myths), he was a former believer in Atlantis but later changed his mind a became a skeptic authoring a peer-reviewed paper - his paper is the main source on the Atlantis Wikipedia article, but despite his skepticism you can dig up his old fringe views on Atlantis; he's apparently developing his own hypothesis of a non-spiritual afterlife (he seems to believe in some ground-hog day scenario where you relive your memories over and over when you die), plenty of other odd, fringe and crank/pseudo-scientific ideas you could probably dig up if you look around.58.152.137.56 (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like gossip to me. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 17:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

I've moved it to my userspace, that should help avoid drama, and is the natural place to put these things.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 15:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

On this occasion, I don't think it even belongs in userspace. There could still be consequences for the entire wiki, not just one user. And just why document this pathetic loser's stupid internet drama? Spud (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

[EC]The natural place to put these things is “nowhere”. You’re free to do (almost) whatever you want in your own userspace, but this is still a waste of your time and will do the opposite of “restrain [his] boldness” if it does anything at all. Christopher (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Summa just pulled the classic "Superstar Maneuver." When you've created an article that pretty much everybody else doesn't want, just hide it in your userspace, where it will gather dust safe from the prying eyes of people who have a vague idea what this wiki is about! It's not like the community prides itself on by run by consensus often expressed through votes! Honestly we should remember the precedent set here. If we don't delete a hopelessly off-mission internet drama article that everybody else wants gone because one person said "U S E R S P A C E," that opens up a window for people to create all kinds of garbage and secure it the moment somebody questions it. Hate to sound like I'm invoking the slippery slope fallacy, but soon we could have stuff like this on everything from favorite TV shows to toxic-yet-hopelessly-obscure offsite drama which then spills to the wiki.-Flandres (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think user subpage to just a favorite TV show is still more preferable than user subpage devoted to Oliver Smith, tbh. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 16:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, @Summa Atheologica would delete this himself. Christopher (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The Secret Chapter by Chapter | Result: Moved to essayspace[edit]

The Secret Chapter by Chapter – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

What even is this? Pointless and redundant. We don't need chapter-by-chapter breakdowns of books. Gangster Computer God (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Immediately repels me with its extensive use of first-person pov throughout. We are a wiki, not an op-ed page. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 11:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Perhaps a simplified version on The Secret page - with far fewer uses of the word 'she.' Anna Livia (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It's covering missional woo in considerably more detail than most people are ever likely to want or need, but there isn't anything drastically wrong with its overall tone or take on the subject. As a not-obviously-batshit labour of love, I think it could rehomed in essayspace and given a See also link in The Secret article. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Moving it to Essay makes sense. It reads like one. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Essayspace it and add link to main article. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Preserve by moving to essay space. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 13:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
What can I say that hasn't been said? Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 13:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Essayify it. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 17:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed.-Flandres (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It's been moved, you're welcome --Zoe Kirk (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

there are actually a couple more such live blogs doing chapter by chapter for the left behind series and for atlas shrugged. they are linked to in the relevant articles. maybe a few more for other works, i dunno, you might stumble across them. those autism uncensored pages referenced something similar being over on tweeter. really poorly, but similar.

there is some utility in this for left behind and atlas shrugged. both massive and/or multiple tomes, and famously really really shit. just really abysmal and tedious with dreadul morals. someone else went through so we dont have too. thank the bloggers for their suffering..

dunno if one for the secret is much use. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Unlike the autism articles I feel this is fairly directly mission oriented. The Secret is Oprah Winfrey endorsed self help woo, teeters around New Age concepts, and (unlike the autism books) you're talking about something with 26K reviews on US Amazon instead of a couple hundred. Unlike Atlas Shrugged and Left Behind, my impression is that it's IMHO woo in the "mostly harmless" category (rah-rah on positive thinking), but it's very notable. Notable enough for this much detail? Eh, probably not on mainspace, but I'd rather not nuke it. (I'll also note that this appears to be the work entirely of one person.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

To Siri With Love | Result: Deleted[edit]

To Siri With Love – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Seems to be mostly sourced from Twitter livethreads, on top of not being very missional or well-written. Besides, someone in the Autism Uncensored AfD said QL's other two articles should probably be AfD'd which I agree with–besides, whatever salvageable stuff from them (if any) could be used in other articles. Gangster Computer God (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
For all the same reasons Autism Uncensored was deleted. Christopher (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
LOL! I was going to do this today actually. 50 sources, ok. But most of them are from Twitter or from the author's own blog, as well as a bunch of other questionable ones. It's too personal for mainspace, maybe better as an essay. I think maybe QuiteLuna didn't understand very well what is a RationalWiki article when they wrote these. GeeJayK (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Same deal as Autism Uncensored. Only right that this gets deleted as well. Spud (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Autism Uncensored all over again, with very similar sources. Like just check my AfD for that and you can reapply all those comments here again. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Preserving the original live-tweet review for posterity. Navigating back & forth between the Twitter threads for each chapter is a pain in the arse, but once it gets going, it's a goddamn fight to the death between the author's most profound character flaws and their very worst literary instincts. Spinal Tap-tier perfection in places, but totally for real. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
the lady doing the tweets is just fucking awful. and no direct references to the book itself, just context free assertions of ignorance and cruelty of dubious merit. it seems entirely in bad faith. the one doing the tweets seem outraged that a mother who is not autistic would dare write a book about her own relationship with her own child who is autistic. how dare she write about her feelings about her own child. what a fucking bitch. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

In a Different Key | Result: Deleted[edit]

In a Different Key – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Another article accusing someone of child abuse based on some tweets. Christopher (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Damn, beat me to it. But ditto. Gangster Computer God (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
GeeJayK (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
it looks like everything with that content warning on it needs to go. Spud (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
There’s one more article with a similar content warning, on a similar topic, by the same user. It’s about an organisation, not an individual who wrote a book, and seems to be better sourced. Christopher (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. We aren't a book review site. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Same issues re. hyperbole as Autism Uncensored and To Siri With Love, and also mostly repeating critiques addressed (somewhat more effectively) in the applied behavior analysis and autism rights movement articles. ABA & ARM articles both probably require some repair work in light of recent AfDs. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Kevs ^Ping! 08:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Chickenhawk/Iraq war vote | Result: Deleted[edit]

Chickenhawk/Iraq war vote – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This looks like a hitlist. Kevs ^Ping! 06:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how this article could possibly further our mission. Where necessary, just link to the relevant article on Wikipedia. Kauri0.o (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Mainspace subpage which is always a negative (they don’t actually count as subpages). Just a list of information easily found elsewhere. Christopher (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Dubiously useful as a reference for the parent subject, has hitlist connotations and doesn't actually work as a subpage. See no reason to have this, it seems a tad amateur to me. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why we have it. And if we have this - why not countless other significant vote results?Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
GeeJayK (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Is this meant to be a list of politicians who'll be first up against the wall when the revolution comes? Spud (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
It’s just a list of information that can be found elsewhere. Moreover, there’s nothing in it that connects in any significant way to the mission Leucippus^Talk 17:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
While I very much doubt this was intended to be a hitlist (assume good faith, children) it isn't missional to the wiki's stated aims. Also I hate listicles, but you all already knew that. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Checking the article's edit history, I saw multiple users putting in the effort to create the article as it stands now. Maybe it was created with good intentions, but I'm not fully sure. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 10:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This article was created in 2008, when the site was barely emerging from Conservapedia troll mode. Half of Rationalwiki's current mission wasn't even written in mid 2010 (the earliest archive.org entry) There wasn't even a Salon Bar from what I can tell. Different times, I presume. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

do people not check talkpages AMassiveGay (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Autism Uncensored | Result: Deleted[edit]

Autism Uncensored – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Reason Hastur! (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
A batshit hatchet job, which:
Flat out accuses someone of viciously abusing her autistic child;

Includes a final section "Zack", written directly to the child himself (!!);

Is approx. 50% sourced to the Twitter / blog posts of a "Sci-Fantasy" author, with autistic children of their own, and strong opinions on the correct way of raising them;

Completely ignores other coverage which indicates the "abuser" is sane & well-adjusted, and that the "abused" child made excellent progress and is functioning quite happily.

For clarity's sake, and because people are fucking lazy at following links, I've appended the most relevant evidence in a new subsection below "Goat". Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Kevs ^Ping! 13:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Article subject doesn’t seem like that big of a deal really. Seems like the book’s primary fault is just bad writing. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@QuietLuna should be free to ressurrect the article and move it to essayspace if they ever come back, but I don’t see why our default shouldn’t still be to delete. Christopher (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Poorly sourced and written, even if it has a bit of missionality deep down. It's probably best to delete it. Gangster Computer God (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Sourcing issues aside, the article is more focused on moralizing than debunking. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The page is lacking in quality. If it were almost all QuietLuna's work, it could just be moved to Essayspace or Draftspace. Since others have edited it away from QuietLuna's original, QuietLuna has the option of putting a version in Essayspace or improving it in Draftspace. I suspect that QuietLuna is the only editor of the page with much actual familiarity with the book. Bongolian (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 21:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
No, I don't think there should be moralizing here on an issue that we have and always will have limited information on. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 22:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Leucippus^Talk 23:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Kauri0.o (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
At first, confused. Then I read it, referenced the sources and came to the conclusion that the article is mostly based around the opinions of a single person on this book on how to raise autistic people and it reeks of "look at this awful thing, you should understand immediately why it's awful". Yes ABA is bad (it's Pavlov training an autistic kid, which with positive rewards isn't bad, but some of the negative stuff is actual abuse), but nothing in this page tells me that. Instead its mostly moralizing about how awful an abusive mother is, which yeah I feel for the kid, but we're not Child Abuse Wiki. We have a mission and moralizing about abuse is kinda not the mission, unless we're discussing it in a manner related to the mission. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
That said, this may freely be put into essayspace if people would rather want that, I'd say it's a perfect fit for it, I just don't think it belongs near mainspace. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

This AfD is a dumb attempt at whitewashing.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 12:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Move to essay space. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
What cosmik said.-Flandres (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll formally throw in a "move to essayspace" vote, it's not a main space article (too non-notable), but no need to completely delete. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree. It looks good until you notice that the 'references' are mostly tweets. Essay space is for axegrinding. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 16:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Ditto Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2021

December 2021[edit]

Ekrem İmamoğlu | Result: Goat (no consensus)[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Result?[edit]

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ| Result: Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Jesus myth theory| Result: Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

/r/detrans | Result: Overwhelming delete[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

November 2021[edit]

Muhammad Amin al-Husseini | Result: Delete[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Buttered cat theory | Result: Merged with and redirected to Murphy's Law[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Nauru | Result: Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Vast right-wing conspiracy | Result: Merged with and redirect to Hillary Clinton[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Divine Revelations.info | Result: Merged into RationalWiki:Webshites[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

October 2021[edit]

2020 Republican Party presidential nomination | Result: Merged with and redirected to 2020 U.S. presidential election[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fun:George Soros | Result: CINTINUE TO BE FUNDIG AND CONTROLLED BY GEORGE SOROS (Keep)[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Draft:Music (film) | Result: Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fun:Michelle Obama's arms | Result: Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Irrationality | Result: Redirected to Rationality[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

New vote on whether to merge or redirect[edit]

Redirect to Rationality[edit]

Merge with Rationality[edit]

Goat[edit]

Three Arrows | Result: Deleted[edit]