RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2022

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

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

December 2022

Fun:A day in the life of Joseph Stalin | Result: Deleted

Fun:A day in the life of Joseph Stalin (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This article is a magnum opus of comedic genius by Wisconcom (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) , a user that got angry some random wiki decided to boot off and tried to drag drama over here. This article begins with linking "killing 100 million people" to "bullshit" and then sarcastically repeats this claim throughout the article while also sarcastically repeating claims that Joseph Stalin is a supervillain. This "fun" article reeks highly of tankie apologia that strawmans criticism of Stalin to make Stalin seem better than who he actually is (it's kind of hard to overstate how terrible he is, honestly), which reminds me of the whole "the 6 billion" shit repeated by Neo-Nazis when it comes to Holocaust Denial. This thing really has no business being in funspace. It's not even funny. It's just jokes repeated several times like "lol he killed 100 million people" and iterations of "lol look at idiots claiming he's solely responsible for the mass starvation, COMICALLY LARGE SPOON" were so hilarious the first time. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
2. It's completely random--April ^Chat? 19:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

   What a Communist you are; your capitulation to Robert Conquestian-propaganda indictates your revolutionary sprit. You are clearly a Eurocom! isc ^{— Unsigned, by: Wisconcom / talk / contribs} 22:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

3. Scurrilous. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Agree with LeftyGreenMario Edward the eight (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Kill it with fire. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
6. Not funny Christopher (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
7. Unfunny shite. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
8. Tankie nonsense. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep

#What is this? You Liberal-social fascists all just loath good humor. You are clearly all just targeting my work because it questions the running ideological line of this site. You claim to be against "authoritarianism", but this is clearly 1984-esque censorship. You all just hate great leaders! isc ^{— Unsigned, by: Wisconcom / talk / contribs} 22:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Plutocow (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Stalin was a piece of shit, not a great leader. Also, didn't you LANCB'd? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Redacted vote. AfD has been passed already a few hours ago. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Eh i'm neutral as far as this one goes. Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  Then don't say anything. Christopher (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Institute for Jewish and Community Research | Result: Vaporized

Institute for Jewish and Community Research (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This article seems to be little more than cherry-picking statements from an obscure think tank that appears to have crapped out c. 2019. Whereas the Institute's antisemitism report makes for some interesting reading, the content seems rather innocuous and unworthy of an article on RationalWiki. Certainly, the article as written does little more than scrape some stuff off the Institute's (now defunct) website and make some broad statements. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Yeeeeah, no. Andrew5 (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Vee (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Meh, the article isn't substantial enough. It's a shame that something deemed as an interesting read is probably going to be removed from this site, but if we can't offer much criticism on this, then there's not much point to this page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Nothing worth keeping. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 02:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
6. It's not really an article, is it? It's just 3 huge quotes. And if the website's dead, there's really no way of improving the article. Spud (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
7. Not substantial enough to be within our mission. Blakegripling ph (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
8. Didn't even know it existed till now. Not good enough or relevant enough to keep. Bongolian (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
9. Wow, 14 year old article. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Lemmygrad | Result: Bob-ombed

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

Delete

1. Another example of Wisconcom using rationalwiki to litigate drama he's involved in from obscure communist websites. He even mentions himself explicitly in the article. Christopher (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
2. About as missional as YouTube articles Edward the eight (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
3. This is the same fucking shit that Oliver D. Smith used to pull, writing about his non-notable internet enemies and trying to equate their dislike of him with hatred of RationalWiki. Let's not allow Wisoncom to abuse RationalWiki for his own ends to anything like the extent that we allowed Smith. Spud (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
4. There's maybe some missionality here, but I feel like we're giving more oxygen to a community that doesn't deserve it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
5. As far as I can tell Lemmygrad is a non-notable groupthink-based site driven by its members' confirmation biases and maintained by left-wing purity tests. But the only reason this article was created is because one editor failed those purity tests and decided to engage in some type of wiki revenge porn. It's non-notable and we don't need to encourage the drama.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
6. Scream!! (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
7. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 14:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
8. I'm literally in the communist party and I've never heard of this forum in my life...lmao. This is so terribly obscure.--April ^Chat? 17:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

   If that is the case, the only "communist" party you are in is "C"PUSA, or some other social democratic organization. You clearly hate all real Communists. Whatever! Wisconcom (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

   are You doing the No True Scotsman fallacy? Edward the eight (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

   All hail! … splitters. Bongolian (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

   Well...it is officially a Marxist-Leninist party. Oh well. I didn't expect Wisconcom to respond but that gave me a laugh.--April ^Chat? 18:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

9. 🧹 --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
10. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

American Girl | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. It's a brand of dolls, hardly missional. The controversy and attacks from cranks are hardly to the level of having an RW article on the subject. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Page meets criteria 3 and 4, is well sourced and does not appear to have much in the way of outstanding quality issues. Opposing deletion, would consider Bronze Brainstar promotion with only small changes. I agree we have too many articles on no-names, this is not one of those things. A curious little insight into the US culture war throughout relatively recent ages. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
2. It's fine. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Reasonable enough. Andrew5 (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Bongolian (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
6. The article does a good job at justifying its own missionality (which admittedly isn't obvious at a glance). Christopher (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
7. Certainly appears missional to me. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Steve Turley | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. This person is not very notable. While 43,500 followers on Twitter is certainly better then the 5 I have, it still isn't that much in this day and age. Plus, his Wikipedia article was deleted for being not notable (check the talk page for the link). Seems to be another nobody with an article. Andrew5 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
2. We don't need an article on every random dumbass with a Twitter account. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 02:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Article is harmless, missional, there's no need to delete this or quibble over its existence. Wikipedia may have notability stuff but it's not necessarily relevant to this wiki. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
2. We care about missionality, not notability. Plutocow (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   What all of a sudden makes 43.5k followers notable? Three Arrows was deleted while having 7 times the number of followers. Andrew5 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   Did you even read my comment? Plutocow (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   Wait a minute, you didn't participate in the 3 Arrows debate. Andrew5 (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Andrew5 has been nominated for the Did you even read my comment? award for December 2022. Congratulations!

—cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

1. There's also the fact that I still think deleting that article was a mistake. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   I figured that would come up. Andrew5 (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

2. Appears to also have an active YouTube channel with 1 million subscribers, reliably getting over 100k views. Article could use some work to make clearer that he isn’t totally indistinguishable from every other Christian nationalist, but we have articles on less prominent people. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 13:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
4. At least five of his books were translated to ptbr. If he's notable down here, he's notable elsewhere. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Vee (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Notability or lack thereof is not by itself a valid criterion for proposing an article on RW for vaporization. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 01:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  The article also sucks, though. It's clearly another entry in the "I got mad at someone on the internet and typed this through tears" series. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 02:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah maybe but like, again, the article. It's small, brief summary of a shitty podcaster. It isn't poorly written, the article isn't a hopelessly tiny zero effort stub (which would've been the case if the guy was like really a random schmuck on Twitter). It's on topic. But why delete it? Why not just leave it as it is, a small inconsequential page that is relevant to the mission of this wiki. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's not giving out enough information to satisfy readers. It's like getting 1/32 of a pizza pie as a slice. Andrew5 (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  You make it sound as if adding more details were an impossible feat, or at least one restricted to other people. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 13:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  We should stay away from Twitter references, especially given the website could collapse. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  "It's not giving out enough information to satisfy readers". That's why we have expansion templates. Otherwise, guess we have to toss out all articles that transcludes {{Expand}} like Media racism. As I reiterate my point (le sigh): there are reasons we delete short pages but usually it's when they're zero effort stubs or not missional or the subject is excessively obscure, and this one isn't it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  This literally looks like a zero effort article. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Not zero effort, as the original creator did have to at least consume enough of their ramblings to make the summing-up that they did. I did a revision check and it is basically the same article which was created back in '20. I would argue that the semi-stub does need a bit more fleshing-out; that it is part of the RW's mission to provide at least a bare-bones walkthough on the kinds of BS X person likes to peddle. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Ripley's Believe It or Not! (comic) | Result: Keep by a narrow margin

Ripley's Believe It or Not! (comic) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Does not really relate to RatWiki's mission 149.19.43.157 (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Bumpf

   What the BON said. Vee (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

   How does not relate to RatWiki's mission? It uses the name of a popular newspaper strip to claim the stories within are of the same quality as the newspaper strip. And for the first issues even uses those very newspaper strip to add authenticity.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

   Hard to see this as exactly missional, and if someone can make an argument that it is, they can easily rewrite a better article from scratch with low amounts of effort. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Abstaining, not worth any of the drama anymore. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   The lead clearly states that "While it claimed to have the same authenticity as the newspaper comic strip, the overly dramatic way that many of the stories were told leaves much doubt in the reader's mind. Especially the ones that read like fictional trope stories." The fact that this was missed makes me wonder if some of the people asking for deletion have actual read the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

2. Yes, it's on-mission. No, it's still not worth saving. Improving this article would mean rewriting basically everything in it. Might as well delete. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

   If we nuked every badly written article we'd nuke about a 10th of the site. :-) --BruceGrubb (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

   I would be in full support of doing that. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

   IIUC hat is not what deletion is for.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

   It's been a mixed bag. Some deletion results of crappy articles are deleted, some aren't. It depends on how degrading the article quality is. In this case, the article has 0 references. It's Wikipedia counterpart has 54 references so it shouldn't be hard to restart from scratch. Andrew5 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

   Uh the stories are the references!--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

   There is no way to verify if that is actually what the stories are saying. Andrew5 (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

   I really don't understand this comment. Are you saying the summations are inaccurate or something else?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

   I'm saying, without sources, there is no way to see if it is false or true. Andrew5 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

   And what sources do the Ripley's Believe It or Not! newspaper strips (such as this one) have within them? Seems to be a double standard there. Is the following what you are looking for?

   "Demon in the Glass Cage" (Issue #10, August 1968) claims the display of Jeremy Bentham body manifested a ghost when it was put into a storeroom rather than being on display. His body now sits at Student Centre at UCL--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

   This has 54 references, so start citing. Andrew5 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   You do realize one of those references is in regarding "From 1965 until 1980, Gold Key Comics published the second Ripley's Believe It or Not! comic book, lasted for 94 issues." right?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   Yes, but I don't see how a reference would be harmful per se.Andrew5 (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   It took a devil of a time but found reference for "Sea Hags" (Issue #19; April 1970): "The Ghostly Catch" in Reynolds, James (1947). Ghosts in Irish Houses. New York , Creative Age Press Press. ISBN 0517014343. — "Out of the livid clouds, with such deadening impact that the corpse-white, glutinous mass of fish bodies sank beneath the surface, came dark, winged shapes. Streaming out behind them, tangling together, were rags or dank feathers. Were these birds? Were they Harpies? Like a flash, I realized that they were the Dread Women of Moher feeding upon the Ghostly Catch at Drumnacrogh."--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

3. the examples aren't really even notable. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 18:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

   "Spawn of the Wolf Pack" (Dec 1969), where it claimed that Kamala answered the call of her wolf pack and ran off with them, though other reports have her dying of either tuberculosis or typhoid fever is not notable?! She along with her sister has a freaking wikipedia article which has a far higher bar for notable than we do.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

   Ripley's Believe It or Not! Wikia has a whole section on the gold key comic which I am currently adding to.^{— Unsigned, by: BruceGrubb / talk / contribs}

4. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

   IMHO there should be reasons with deletes so a reply can be made.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

5. what is about it that makes it relevant? Edward the eight (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

   It uses the name of a popular newspaper strip (Ripley's Believe It or Not! ) to claim the stories within are of the same quality as the newspaper strip. And its modern incarnation pulls from those very newspaper strips. In fact, from issue #1 (June 1965) to issue #9 (May 1968) it used relevant material from the newspaper strip to add to the authenticity of the other stories within the comic.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

6. From the way it's written it's hard to tell if it was exposing nonsense claims or espousing them. Either way it could potentially be missional if this were made really clear. But even in that case the article would also need to explain why a comic book which ceased publication some 40 years ago is somehow relevant to our mission today.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

   Please explain how "While it claimed to have the same authenticity as the newspaper comic strip, the overly dramatic way that many of the stories were told leaves much doubt in the reader's mind. Especially the ones that read like fictional trope stories." "Some stories are blatantly made up ("Music that Charms") and yet are claimed to be entirely true.", and '"Music that Charms" (issue #43, Oct 1973) is an excellent example of the quality of this "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" comic. The story claims that in 1967 Edgecombe the American architect Alan Barlow was saved by the ghost of a woman who played music on a non functional organ so he could escape a Black Mamaba. One of the guides tells him that the ghost was that of a Miss Dennis who had died using the organ to pacify a Black Mamaba some 20 years previously. The clue that the story is fake is the fact snakes are deaf — a fact that was pointed out in one of the newspaper strips!' are unclear.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

   So it seems to me there are three possibilities. 1. These stories were actually written from a skeptical point of view, but with subtle clues which clever people would interpret so as to understand the true skeptical meaning. This particularly clever dodge by the author might make the thing mission-worthy. 2. The stories are written from a credulous point of view by people who are not particular good at (for example) snake anatomy but they really want people to believe them. Again it could be mission-worthy. 3. They are just stories - like a vast number of ghost, vampire werewolf and vampire fiction which has been produced over the years. This would have scant interest to us.

   It seems to me that 3 is more likely. They are just stories which sometimes have mistakes. Trying to use these mistakes, or the author's style of writing, to infer that they were secretly trying to send messages in such a way that the initiated would would realize the author's "true intent" frankly strikes as conspiracy theory territory.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

   Well 3 is out on its ear because the comic claims to be of the same quality as the newspaper strips and in fact used said strips in issues #1 to #9. Also there is stuff like "Vampire of the Schloss" (Issue #10, August 1968) which claims in 1961 a man buys a Schloss supposedly haunted by a vampire. When attacked by the vampire the man is told that driving an alpenstock into the grave will destroy it. The man is found dead of a heart attack haven driven the alpenstock through his coat. A variant of this story appeared as "The Grave" (The Twilight Zone, Oct 27, 1961) Heck the way it is written it might as well be the "The Grave" with the twist removed! More problematic is there are no real names to trace the story (both the man and the Schloss are unnamed) Yet the comic also has "Balloon Buster" (issue #5 June 1967) which tells the story of Frank Luke claiming if he had survived he would have been court-martialed and "The Red Knight of Germany" (Issue #3, November 1966) which details the fighting career of the Red Baron. According to the end of the story the Red Baron made a 3 point landing while mortally wounded. --BruceGrubb (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

   They still sound like common or garden ghost stories to me. Some of them may have plot holes or or be written tongue-in cheek - but I think confirmation bias is causing you to over-interpret this to find some hidden skeptical message.

   There is also a general "citation needed" problem - which others have pointed out. This is both in respect of what the authors intent actually was but also in respect of everything else. It's not just we we only have your word (or belief) in respect of what the author's original intent was; we also only have your word for what is the actual content of the stories themselves. I'm not suggesting that you are lying - but both these things would need to be referenced. And in respect of the author's intent it would need to be pretty explicitly referenced as well - not just inferred from one particular reading. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   I have never said what the author's original intent was. All I have pointed out is how each issue has either True Ghost Stories, True War Stories, True Demons and Monsters and/or Authentic! as well as Ripley's Believe It or Not! on the cover.

   Heck, I have no idea what the various author's original intent was because the stories are all over the place in terms of information provided allowing one to follow them back to any kind of source material. "Balloon Buster" and "The Red Knight of Germany" are easily back checkable but stories like "Vampire of the Schloss" are a nice road to nowhere. And then there is stuff like Major Weir ("The Devils Staff") which have their own set of issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   Ok. If we don't (indeed can't) know that the stories were intended to promote skepticism - why do we have the article? Isn't it "just some stories"?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   Sigh. 1) The comic has "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" on the cover which carries its own expectations. (If it was Grimm Tales of Terror, Twilight Zone, or Boris Karloff Thriller — close contempories — you would have a point but it is Ripley's Believe It or Not!). 2) Every Issue has either True or Authentic! slapped on the cover. 3) Because it is presenting stories of questionably reliability as True or Authentic! and using Ripley's Believe It or Not! to further add to the supposed accuracy of the stories within it is on mission.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

7. One less near-stub on the site. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. It's an exposé on nonsensical claims. That sounds on-mission to me. It is pretty bare-bones, though. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
2. There is a lot of material in the comic and as the text explains "While it claimed to have the same authenticity as the newspaper comic strip, the overly dramatic way that many of the stories were told leaves much doubt in the reader's mind. Especially the ones that read like fictional trope stories.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

   "Music that Charms" (issue #43, Oct 1973) is an excellent example of the quality of this "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" comic. The story claims that in 1967 Edgecombe the American architect Alan Barlow was saved by the ghost of a woman who played music on a non functional organ so he could escape a Black Mamaba. One of the guides tells him that the ghost was that of a Miss Dennis who had died using the organ to pacify a Black Mamaba some 20 years previously. The clue that the story is fake is the fact snakes are deaf — a fact that was pointed out in one of the newspaper strips!

   "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" carries with it a certain reputation and the very cover of issue #43 has "True Ghost Stories", Weird! Eerie!, Authentic!--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

   "The Sea Hags" is an example of how hard it is to trace back these stories even when you have a piece of information. An insanely long search for "Drumnacrogha" produced "The Ghostly Catch" in Reynolds, James (1947). Ghosts in Irish Houses. New York , Creative Age Press. ISBN 0517014343 (1981 edition). pg 185-195 — "Out of the livid clouds, with such deadening impact that the corpse-white, glutinous mass of fish bodies sank beneath the surface, came dark, winged shapes. Streaming out behind them, tangling together, were rags or dank feathers. Were these birds? Were they Harpies? Like a flash, I realized that they were the Dread Women of Moher feeding upon the Ghostly Catch at Drumnacrogh."

3. I've been convinced. We have articles on equally notability less things. What matters is missionality, not notability. Vee (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

   It's notable (has a Wikipedia article with 54 refs), but also is totally unsourced and has awful quality. It would be easier to start from scratch. Andrew5 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

   That article is on the entire Ripley's Believe It or Not! franchise. The Gold Key comic only a small part of that franchise.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

4. Bongolian (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Plutocow (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
6. Missional. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 21:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
7. Although the article could be a bit clearer on this, my impression is that the newspaper comic prints fun facts, whereas the comic books published nonsense ghost stories under the same branding. Poking around online reviews suggests that some people really bought that the ghost stories are educational, so it seems missional to me. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

   Not just "nonsense ghost stories" but "True War Stories" — Issues #3 (The Red Knight of Germany; The Incredible Sea Hunt of Sub E-11; The Lost Battalion) and #5 (The Last Kamikaze; The General Was a Spy — Text only story of Alexander Scotland who was supposedly known as General Schottlandt by German General Staff. This was told in The Two-Headed Spy (1958); Miracle of the Marne; Hand to Hand — Story of a battle on May 6, 1944 between a U-boat and US ship ending with a single hand grenade sinking the U-boat; Dead Man's Ambush - How a barrage killed three Germans manning a machine gun potentially saving the life of Douglas MacArthur; The Balloon Buster — Story of Frank Luke claiming if he had survived he would have been court-martialed)

8. Per all. Prefer to err on keep to improve rather than scrub an article with some potential. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   How is there potential for a comic book that ceased production 40 years ago and has no sources, in addition to a hostile author refusing to add any? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   Considering edit 12:11, 10 December 2022 (one hour an 2 minutes before your post) has a reference regarding Sea Hags and some of the pieces refer back to wikipedia articles (and other places) the claim "refusing to add any" is blatantly false. Heck a variant of The fiery coach of Major Weir appears on the cover issue #39 (April 1973).--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   The only reference is a comic gallery. There should be more sources. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   Again untrue — "The Ghostly Catch" in Reynolds, James (1947). Ghosts in Irish Houses. New York , Creative Age Press. ISBN 0517014343 (1981 edition) is in the article. One thing you have been avoiding like the plague is why the newspaper script gets a free pass but the comic needs references out the wazoo. I mean take "After Ed Crosgan of Bristol, Penn, died, the family dog Polo disappeared and was found Waiting at the Funeral home!" (March 03, 2004) — but when did Ed Crosgan of Bristol, Penn die? When was the dog found and what was the name of the funeral home?. Then there is "Scientists at Stanford University have developed "ibrain" technology With which they hope to translate the brain waves of paralyzed English physicist Stephen Hawking!" (January 11, 2013) A little googling will produce the relevant article but then you find the details are wrong. "(iBrain was invented by) Philip Low, a 32-year-old neuroscientist who is chief executive of NeuroVigil, a company based in San Diego". The only Standford reference is in regard to associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences Ruth O’Hara of Stanford University Medical School planning to use iBrain for autism studies.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   Then why are none of the refs in MLA format? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   Because cite book (which comes from Wikipedia) uses a totally different format. MLA generally has Author; Title; Publisher, year published. Cite book by contrast is closer to APA which is Author last name; first name; year published; Title; publisher; isbn (when available)

   cite book in raw wiki text looks like this: {{cite book|last1=Reynolds|first1=James|date=1947|title=Ghosts in Irish Houses|publisher=New York , Creative Age Press Press|isbn=0517014343}} which when rendered results in Reynolds, James (1947). Ghosts in Irish Houses. New York , Creative Age Press Press. ISBN 0517014343. .

   For anyone interested, The University of Pittsburgh has Citation Styles: APA, MLA, Chicago, Turabian, IEEE which details how the various citation formats are supposed to be used and set up. And yes there are a lot of places where this site (and Wikipedia itself) drops the ball in the proper use of APA and in the case of articles like John Frum, Jesus, and Ghost APA and other formats are used in the same article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   For those that are interested (and for @Andrew5 who says that the claims cannot be backed up because there are no sources), the entire series is available on ReadComicsOnline.li. Be forewarned: this site has a lot of seamy popups and javascript nasties, so an ad blocker and safe browsing habits are strongly encouraged. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   Seamy popups, javascript nasties, along with a 'copyright means right to copy anything we want' mentality is precisely why I didn't mention that site. The .ru and .to versions of the site don't work showing there is an effort to shut sites like that down. Side note a search for 'Ripleys Believe It or Not 01-43 (1965)' can cough up a blogspot site that has issues #1-#43 in cbz/cbr format.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

9. I see MLA. It's satisfactory now. Andrew5 (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

   Don't under stand why, given {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}, and {{cite news}} all use a APA variant (which is used by Education, Psychology, and the Sciences), one would want to use MLA which is for the Humanities. Side note the Chicago/Turabian style is generally used by Business, History, and the Fine Arts.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Move to draft, maybe we can salvage something out of this unless there are already better resources for this thing. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

   That's ordinarily a good idea, but who among us has even seen or even heard of thes comics? If they were available on the Internet Archive, that would at least be a starting point for improving the article, but I didn't see them there. Bongolian (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

   Newsflash, Internet Archive doesn't have everything. The Grand Comics Database has a cover gallery though.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Goat

From the way it's written it's hard to tell if it was exposing nonsense claims or espousing them. Either way it could potentially be missional if it were better written. But even in that case the article would also need to explain why a comic book which ceased publication some 40 years ago is somehow relevant to our mission today.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Moved to delete vote.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's missional, but no citations after 3 years is bad. Does @BruceGrubb, the page's creator, have anything to say? Bongolian (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• What do you want me to add? The Contents of all 94 issues going from June 1965 to Feb 1980?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  You could at least the Month/Year of publication for each issue cited. Covers for those issues could be downloaded from the comics.org site and uploaded to RW for the page in a gallery at the bottom. There also seems to be a third iteration of the comic published by Dark Horse Comics (Ripley's Believe It or Not! § Comic books) that you could mention in the lede. Bongolian (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  Uh upload now states that the picture must be your own work (This is my own work, checkbox) which the covers most definitely are not. Linked to the aforementioned Grand Comics Database gallery.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  I just uploaded an image that was not my own work 2 days ago under the Fair Use license tag. Bongolian (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  "This is my own work (checkbox) I confirm that I am uploading this file following the terms of service and licensing policies on RationalWiki." It is just badly worded and implies there is no Fair Use license tag for images.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• RewriteJakester499 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• what jakester499 said. And reading through all the comments, I think BruceGrubb would be the best person for the job since he seems to know alot about this comic. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Political insanity | Result: Deleted

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

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

Delete

1. Most of these categories have been deleted, so there's little point to keeping it around. Plutocow (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
2. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 21:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
3. The consensus is also against making more categories to put in this category. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Per the deletion of all but one political insanity template from March to May earlier this year. Andrew5 (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Christopher (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
6. No longer useful. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 20:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
7. KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!! But seriously, every other value judgement category has been deleted. Time to take out the trash. Vee (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Second-god (Christ) | Result: Entered the Eternal Fire

Second-god (Christ) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Nonsensical, barely unreadable, fringe, unsourced, not missional, encyclopedical, you name it. Just more content that the bloated verbal diarrheas we call Jesus myth theory, or Christ myth theory, or Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ or whatever probably already cover. I hate it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

   Um. What did I even look at? It looks like thinly-veiled Christ-bashing. I'm refraining from actually voting for now because I'm not even sure what this is. Luigifan18 (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

   That's one of the problems of the article. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

2. Christ myth theory is pseudohistorical bullshit. Vee (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Presents a fringe theory uncritically. Devoting an entire article to it gives that fringe theory undue weight. Spud (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
4. It feels borderline incoherent with all its technical jargon yet still feels like it is lacking in content. Plutocow (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
5. I have no idea what it is trying to tell me.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
6. ??? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
7. Finally!Andrew5 (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
8. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
9. on one hand, the bibliography and refs are well-done and i'd consider reading further. on the other hand, who would read this? Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 18:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
10. Delete. Let’s make rationalwiki rational again!Jakester499 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

    Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki Andrew5 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

11. My eyes are glazing over right in the first few seconds in. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
12. I don't even know what I'm reading. Luigifan18 (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
13. i don't even know what this article is trying to say to me Edward the eight (Talk) 21:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. "…one pseudohistory promoter, Richard Carrier…" —User:GeeJayK; "Christ myth theory is pseudohistorical bullshit." —User:Vee. They are dispensing the Jim Jone's Kool-Aid of "TRUTH!" and want you to drink up. If one side of the flat-tard coin is "the majority can never be right", then the other side is "the majority can never be wrong" –Dbz (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

   1) Can you make a better defense for keeping this page? 2) Do not use ableist slurs gratuitously ("tard"). Bongolian (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

   Thats not an ableist slur. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

   A sophisticated first_CE Platonist (i.e. middle platonic) would understand evil in the same way that something being “cold”—can be understood as merely the absence of heat. All (Loddy, Doddy, and Everybody) have the potential to be good in the same way that every atom (understood as a ball on the Newtonian billiard table universe) has the potential to have heat. Thus a person is evil if they are not living their full human potential. As the bible says; since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, “men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men … They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice.” because they are ‘COLD’ (i.e. not fulfilling their potential to be good), thus have “a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.” Cf. Romans 1:28 & "Plotinus on Evil". YouTube

   What Middle-Platonism does decisively .. is to push from dualism in a monistic direction. Walsh argues that Paul is uses "middle platonic" philosophy. Cf. Walsh, Robyn Faith (2021). The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-83530-5. (Middle Platonism & Paul the Apostle: pp. 7, 126, 192)

   Linssen, Martijn (2022). From Chrestian to Christian – Philip beyond the grave. Thomas Miscellaneous. Academia.edu. "It ought to be common knowledge that no Greek or Latin manuscript ever writes out the name for Jesus or Christ in full: where the Greek exclusively uses ⲓⲥ ⲭⲥ, the Latin employs ⲓⲏⲥ ⲭⲣⲥ, even literally transcribing those Greek letters." –Dbz (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

   Er... what --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

   Paul worshiped Chrest, not Christ, both are abbreviated the same way. People are reaching elbow deep up their ass to claim that they know Paul wrote Christ and not about the two powers in Jewish heaven, El (first-god) & Yahweh (second-god i.e. Chrest), which are well suited to a religious syncretism with first_CE Platonism. Cf. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. Westminster John Knox Press. 1992. ISBN 978-0-664-25395-0. & "Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed - R.G. Price". YouTube. History Valley. 3 December 2022. "@time:00:15:13" –Dbz (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

So I am kinda confused about where you are coming from. Some comments above seem to suggest that people believe you are arguing in favour of mythicism - but from the little I can understand from your comments I'm not at all sure that is the case. So are you arguing for mythicism or not? A simple "yes" or "no" would clear it up. Thanks.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly my impression is that your evidence for this "Chrestus" "letterology" is, er, weaksauce (a comment in an atheist blog along with additional blogstuff).

Most sources I piece together seem to say that Greek term Χριστός (Christ) came from χρῑστός ("the annointed one"), and this term was used for what the Hebrews called משיח (Messiah). In fact, this is sort of a descriptive term (like, say, "Alexander the Great" (Μέγας Αλέξανδρος)), even though we kind of treat "Christ" as if it were a full name these days. More emphasis should be put on the actual name -- Ἰησοῦς, from the Hebrew name ישוע, or Yeshua (a derivative of the English name Joshua or the Hebrew name Yehoshua), which is all over the New Testament. (The "Jesus" term comes from the Roman translation.) So I feel this argument falls apart when Paul's letters largely contain terms like Ιησου Χριστου or Χριστου Ιησου. Jesus the Chrest, really? BobJohnson (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"Marcion's Origins - Dr. Markus Vinzent". Youtube.com. 30 September 2022. "@time:00:32:44". Vinzent argues that Marcion demarcates Jewish Messiah (Christ) mythology and the original Chrestian mythology of second-god in his upcoming 2023 work on Marcion's "John the Baptizer".

"Marcion And The Dating Of The Synoptic Gospels - Professor Markus Vinzent". YouTube. History Valley. 27 May 2022. @time:01:00:04. Vinzent notes that a core of the Pauline material may have been authored by Marcion and Co. Vinzent is trying to reconstruct this original Pauline material. –Dbz (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

Why the keen interest here? I’ve never seen 13 votes to delete or keep before. Usually we get like 7 at most for both sides combined. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It's over, I killed it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Text of the Virginia Personhood Bill | Result: Deleted alongside two other similar articles

Text of the Virginia Personhood Bill (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This can be considered an AFD for Text of the Oklahoma Personhood Bill and Text of the Virginia Ultrasound Bill, as all three have the same problems. Namely, they provide nothing besides the text of a bill that can be easily linked to, and besides, they feel quite outdated considering the current state of abortion rights in America (Virginia isn't even one of the states to ban abortion). While legislative attempts to ban abortion are worth covering this just isn't the way to do it. Plutocow (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
2. This bill was defeated in 2012. No reason to have the text of long-outdated legislation that didn't even pass. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
3. No reason to have these. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Agreed. Spud (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep

Improve, don't overzealously make deletion nominations. Andrew5 (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is there to improve? Plutocow (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Fuck all. They're not articles. There's nothing to edit. Spud (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Far right | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. The article is heavily unsourced, and has a heavy listicle. That's not to mention the political science problem with completely ignoring the libertarian-authoritarian axis, among other things. Vee (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Since we deleted the other one. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 11:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
3. This is a pretty low quality listicle. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. I do not think citing "the far left article was deleted" is sufficent because the two need to be evaluated on a case by case basis; also, the far right is much more missional than the far left. Andrew5 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Not seeing a clearly-argued mission-based reason for the delete. Obviously, I could be persuaded if one were presented.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
3. This one is in desperate need of cleanup and more citations, but is definitely missional and should be improved, not deleted. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Christopher (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Bongolian (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
6. Documenting the ideology and trends of the far-right is critical, particularly considering their increasing influence in many countries. The article itself requires expansion and further sources in certain sections, but overall should be kept. Wisconcom (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Goat

So I just thought I rant here for a moment about this deletion suggestion.

Two of the deletion votes are about the fact that the article could be better. Sure, that is absolutely true (and probably true of every article). But if an article is on-mission - but not up to par - then the solution is to improve it. I understand that there will be editors who think it could be improved but don't want to put in the work to actually improve it. But, if that is the case, then leaving it alive until someone who actually wants to improve it comes along would seem to be the better solution. Furthermore, putting time into debating whether or not to delete an obviously on-mission article - instead of using that same effort to improve it - might not be the best use of editors' time.

Meanwhile we have articles like, for example, Heart Attack Grill which are are so bizarrely off-mission that it beggars belief.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Heart Attack Grill is probably missional.Andrew5 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Left-wing boogeymen | Result: Speedily deleted

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

Delete

1. This category is completely unnecessary and already has questionable inclusions (how is Trump a boogeyman when he actually tried to pull a coup?). Plutocow (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Unnecessary. Why does this crap keep getting created here? Candidate for speedy deletion. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 21:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
3. To repeat what I said on the talk page: categories like these are arbitrary value judgements that don't serve to further constructive discorse. Vee (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
4. I'll delete this one and the other one without an AfD. If you disagree with me, undo the deletion, ping me and we'll take the long road. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Political insanity was supposed to have been purged last spring. Andrew5 (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Emily Willoughby | Result: axe grinding by usual troll ended up grinding troll's own arms

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

Delete

1. Seems not missional to this wiki. Article mostly concerns Wikipedia drama with very few reliable sources. I am Mikemikev and I have something important to say. BUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRPPPP (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Looks quite missional to me. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Vee (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
3. This article concerns a crank with a morally and scientifically repugnant worldview who has resorted to intellectually dishonest antics in order to advance said worldview. I think this article is missional. Luigifan18 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

   I just checked @I am Mikemikev and I have something important to say. BUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRPPPP's contributions. They have literally done nothing outside of creating this AfD. That sounds like a red flag to me. Given that Emily is pissed at us and already has a history of creating sockpuppets on Wikipedia, I have to express similar concerns about a potential ulterior motive for this AfD that I did for Rome Viharo. Luigifan18 (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

   They're probably a sock for sure. Regardless, let the community have a say. Perhaps the sock can provide more insight into their rationale. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

   Question is who it's a sock of. A certain long term pest has taken an interest to the article. Who's to say it's not them? Vee (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

4. Speedy archive this frivolous AfD. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Try again, Smith. Maybe this isn't him after all. Anyway, it's obviously a sock. I don't like this AfD. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
6. I'm not used to edit filters on this website. My previous message got stuck in spam. I searched the name @I am Mikemikev and I have something important to say. BUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRPPPP on Wikipedia and discovered it is a banned disruptive user from there and this wiki named Michael Coombs. Willoughby has a history of collaborating with this same person (as documented on her article) to edit race and intelligence articles on Wikipedia. Velociraptor (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

   Knew it. Vee (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

   Somehow, I'm not surprised. Luigifan18 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

7. Suspicious AFD. Personally on the merits alone I'm neutral, as this is a mess and doesn't totally prove outside notability.Andrew5 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
8. Bongolian (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Fun:Bob Barker | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. it's not funny 134.82.183.80 (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Yeah, what's the point? —cosmikdebris ^{talk [[Special:Contributions/Cosmikdebris|stalk]} 13:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Utter shit. And don't bother telling me the guy who created it died in 2010 because that doesn't make it any less shit. Spud (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Not funny. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 11:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Ew. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Landtag referendum, 1931 | Result: Deleted

Landtag referendum, 1931 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. We are not an encyclopedia. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Not quite as bad as the one that was just deleted, but still shares many of the same problems. Plutocow (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
3. No need. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge into Nazism#Origins.Andrew5 (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Far left | Result: Deleted, though the entire section on the political spectrum needs serious work

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

Delete

1. Too stubby and ought to merge with the political spectrum page April ^Chat? 00:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

   I realize I probably should provide a longer reason for this, but there is not much to say. As one can clearly tell, the page operates more as a list of principles and movements rather than as a meaningful discussion on and analysis of radical politics. There is no history provided or any extensive research done, and the section about radical principles put into practice is about as long as a note on a napkin. There is already a page about the political spectrum, and what society often regards as "far-left" politics is a part of that spectrum. Therefore, confining the topic of "far-left" politics to the political spectrum page is more logical than giving the topic its own page.--April ^Chat? 01:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

2. The term "far-left" is not useful in regards to the real analysis of the ideological groups which commonly are called that. Further, from a materialist, historical, and dialectical view, it is largely baseless and relative. For instance, a centuries ago, within the context of the French Revolution, the "far-left" were considered to be what are, by our modern understanding, Liberals and proto-Socialists, whereas today, Liberalism is often viewed as being a "center" or "right-wing" ideology. Further, ideology is itself a product of the relative level of socioeconomic developement of the people following it, hence why, back during the age of feudalism, Liberalism - the ideology of capitalism - was considered radical and "left", and why now, under capitalist society, most Socialists, Anarchists, Communists, and others are considered "far-left". Thus, this term is totally undialectical and immaterial. Regarding the present content of the article, it is largely just a broad listing of a few ideological trends, but lacking in all else. Wisconcom (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Per both. It's a poorly defined article with flimsy examples. It's better to read up on the actual radical left-wing ideologies like social anarchism than go through this page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
4. What she said. Vee (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep

The political spectrum page is a lot worse than this one IMO. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC) Actually, the three pages are pretty bad (including far right). My guess is the authors seem to believe that liberalism is the only actual legitimate political position. Gonna wait before cast a vote. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Rewrite & delete what doesn't seem to be viable for this page. Maybe put it back in the draft section? Has happened before with the Anarchism page from what I've read. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

   As per Wisconcom, "far left," "far right," and "political center" are useless for real analyses of the various angles of the political spectrum, but they get thrown around so often that they are missional terms. RW is not an encyclopedia after all. It's just this article is gonna need a lot of work. Vee (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Nominations with suggestions for merge really should be on the talk page or RW:DUP, tbqh. American daylight saving time ending November 6, Andrew5 (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

   Oh, my bad. Sorry.--April ^Chat? 01:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

   @Andrew5 Why is there a section for merge requests on here then? Vee (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

   Mostly because if deletion is proposed, and an alternate is later found, we can continue smoothly in the discussion. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

2. nevermind, move to draftspace, I don't like delitionism, and one could make this better. The long list of assertions is annoying and dubious FallisBestSeason (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
3. merge with the political spectrum page? as it is this is just half bullet points and half analysis that could stand to be sourced. better to have one big page than a lot of little pages with roughly the same content. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 13:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

   As per GJK, the article on the political spectrum itself is pretty bad. Vee (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

   Merge: Political spectrum isn't bronze but it isn't that bad. Bongolian (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• I want to see how people are feeling about the political spectrum page first, as I'm not a fan of it being merged into a big page like this. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• I'm split between merge/redirect and delete. The article is pretty bad, but it is missional for the wiki. Vee (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's also worth pointing out that the terms "left," "right," and "center" all cover a broad variety of economic, social, and political positions. The CCCP was economically leftist but socially it was pretty rightist. Vee (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Berlin transport strike, 1932 | Result: Finally deleted

Berlin transport strike, 1932 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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

Delete

1. I know that renominating an article for deletion so quickly after it was last voted on is generally considered in bad taste, but the last vote was not at all a conclusive keep vote (in fact, there was only one vote for keep) and this article is still an awful, misleading stub that fails to cover any of its subject manner in any depth. In fact, it's not even clear from the article that it's even missional, as despite communists and Nazis protesting it doesn't even go into why they were protesting, making it an utter failure of an article. I feel my mistake last time was not arguing against the merge option, but really, there's nothing here to merge; in order to merge this into an article like National Bolshevism, you'd have to do a lot of extra work researching this event and writing more about it since the current level of information (or lack thereof) is completely unsuitable for even a cursory look at the subject. Really, I see no reason why this should be kept. Plutocow (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Not a terribly interesting subject to me. Maybe warrants a few sentences in some other articles but that’s it. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
4. -Flandres (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
5. just get rid of it already Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 17:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. I agree with DietMondrain's proposal back then.Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
2. So do I. Honestly, if it's split between merge and delete, just redirect without merge. Andrew5 (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Esther Vilar | Result: Eradicated

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

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

Delete

1. This article was created by User:L's Ideology, a likely sock of Nathan Larson, and while it doesn't have the same issues as his other deleted articles it still isn't very good. It's short, poorly referenced, and describes the subject as a "feminist" when she really isn't. Apparently, there was an attempt at deletion back in 2017 but it was kept by an inconclusive vote. This may be worth at most a footnote on the page antifeminism, but this article is crappy and even Wikipedia's article on the subject isn't very substantive, so this might not be worth its own article. Plutocow (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

   The article doesn't say she's a feminist. There's nothing inaccurate about the sentence saying she self-described as a feminist as she is on video doing such Margaret 003 (talk)

2. Four citations, one is a youtube video and two are from reddit? Blah. Might be worth a small footnote in feminism, but that's about it. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Not gonna pass up eliminating another hopeless stub. American daylight saving time ending November 6, Andrew5 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
4. I see no real point for it. The book referenced is pretty obscure. Also shut up about daylight savings time. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 15:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

   I changed my signature. It was only up 3 days this year. Last year it was up for 19 days. Andrew5 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. For the same reasons here. Also the fact that she's an author of a banned book puts her among a special few. The book itself is of course garbage, but it's noteworthy for being among 3 or so books constantly cited by manosphere Margaret 003 (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

   That's a rather weak argument for keeping, but I wouldn't be opposed to moving it to the draft space. When the original Afd was drafted we didn't have that option. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 01:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

   Or just leave it as it is. A small, subpar article isn't super harmful for the wiki. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

   There should have always been an option to __NOINDEX__ a page cosmik, regardless of namespaces, I recommend the use of that when appropriate. The argument by Pluto that this page is inaccurate about the topic is inaccurate. It's simply stubby, of which there are hundreds on RW Margaret 003 (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Mail-order bride | Result: Annihilated

Mail-order bride (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Another article created by User:Landmartian aka Nathan Larson, and while it's not quite as bad as the other two it's still very problematic, having a lot of racist and misogynistic undertones (like seemingly claiming that Filipina women are naturally attracted to white people and containing a bizarre anti-feminist rant at the end). Like the others, it should be burnt to the ground and restarted. Plutocow (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Send them all to the void, along with Larson. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Purge the wiki of Larson's bullshit. Vee (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
4. 

--It's-a me,  LeftyGreenMario! 19:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Christopher (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
4. LongStylus (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
5. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Sex offender registry | Result: Disintegrated

Sex offender registry (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Like our article on CP, this was largely written by Nathan Larson, and reads like apologia trying to explain why the sex offender registry is unjust. It should just be purged like that other article. Plutocow (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
3. LongStylus (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Should be rewritten from scratch. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
5. There's probably points to be made regarding the effectiveness of such registries esp. the heavy taboo labels and scarlet letter stuff, but the author has more than a checkered past which taints the intent of the article. I wish I can see any more criticisms of the page, though, as the talk page doesn't give me much and I was hoping at least the page went through major revisions since then. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Child pornography | Result: Extirpated

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

Delete

1. See the BON's reasoning on the talk page for why I put the AFD proposal up. Vee (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Yeah we have to start from scratch for this. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
3. -Flandres (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Not what I want, but what unfortunately needs to happen. American daylight saving time ending November 6, Andrew5 (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
6. Christopher (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
7. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 21:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
8. Best to start from scratch. Would personally prefer it if someone does at least have a stub ready to replace it when we remove it. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
9. Let us purge the stench of Larson. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
10. It's an important subject to cover, but not like this. Plutocow (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
11. Bongolian (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
12. LongStylus (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Anyone pulling the trigger on this one, do NOT forget to do a WhatLinksHere cleanup unless you have a draft ready to go. This page is pretty well linked across the site. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Done. Vee (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• It shouldn't have taken this long for this article to have been deleted. Take a look at the history/talk page and you'll see that a freshly registered user (ThisSiteRuxExDee) tried to fix it, but was met with kneejerk "don't section blank" responses and soon gave up. Christopher (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Webshites/Politics | Result: Not killed with fire (but badly needs trimming)

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

Delete

1. The target of this AFD is a bit arbitrary, in that the problems I list here could be applied to any of the Webshites pages, but this is admittedly the one that has caused the most problems. Now, I don't think these articles are a bad idea in theory. A list of bad sources could be useful, and Wikipedia has their list of deprecated sources which serves a similar purpose. Problem is, with Wikipedia there are standards and procedures to get a website on that list, and those don't really exist here. The Webshites articles are mostly edited by a handful of devoted users, with little oversight from the larger community (have you checked everything that is listed here?). This is a problem, especially considering how the articles are virtually unsourced, which can easily get us into BLP problems. Furthermore, there are no standards: for instance, is the politics article only for people who primarily talk about politics or do people who just have a couple of bad takes that they maybe expressed once or twice belong here? Do people belong here solely for pushing misinformation, or can people also be placed here for asshole behavior? Does a person belong here if most of their views are reasonable but they have a couple of blind spots? Should people have a minimum following to be listed here? It's not helped that people were often added to the lists following internet drama. Despite some attempts at cleanup, the problems with this article have never gone away, and the lack of sourcing is a huge issue that has never gone away. Overall, these pages should be cleared until a better process and standards can be made for determining who belongs on the list. Plutocow (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
2. This page is massive, can do with a bit of do-over. However, I see some names there that definitely warrant an article, like Liberty Hangout. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

   Isn't that what the to do list is for? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 13:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

   Well, yes. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

3. Plutocow is right that an occasional cleanup/purge does not address the underlying issue. Unless the page is carefully maintained, it will deteriorate back to poor quality and remain that way most of the time, as it has in the past. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 17:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

   I gave solutions on how to address that in my keep vote. Andrew5 (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

   I would have no problem keeping it if standards and a process were in place. As I see it, if we delete it, either we subsequently develop no such system, and keep it gone, or develop a system, in which case resurrecting the page is trivial. If we keep the page, either we develop a system, in which case there is no difference, or we don’t, in which case we retain a perennially low quality page, and I see no reason to prefer that. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 22:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

4. I thought about doing this myself at least a couple of times. Right now it looks like a "what I don't like" list. GeeJayK (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
5. 

✻ sigh ✻ Several years ago I split the gigantic webshites page into the "portal" and sub-pages as it exists now. I was in favor of deleting the whole mess then because I don't think it provides any use to the community to present what is basically a giant bookmarks list. I don't think we have enough concerned users to properly curate this mess, and proposals for implementing some kind of a standards/process/workflow for adding and/or reviewing entries is rather laughable. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 13:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

1. I agree with @Cosmikdebris, if a truly interesting site shows up that could warrant a RW article, it belongs at the to-do list. Attempts to establish processes for reviewing new additions look doomed for failure, in my opinion because 1) it would make editing mainspace easier than editing the website directories and 2) it requires active editors that care enough about this to review the new additions, of which I doubt there are many. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

2. all the webshite lists should go. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep, but do a massive purging of it. Vee (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Keep, but purge. Like Wikipedia, we should have a process for discussing articles here. Andrew5 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Keep, but take out the hedge clippers and go to town. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
4. Keep, probably check what sites are still active & what sites aren't + maybe adding some new ones (if possible). Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
5. Trimming out the fat is fine eough. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 17:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
6. Keep, but agree we should do an audit of the sites to see which ones are ded/inactive/rarely visited. EDIT: Hell, I might make it a personal project if this page is confirmed keep. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
7. Keep, and yeah, we should check which are active, which are inactive, and which are dead. "Dead" in my eyes means account/site's down with no replacement. Not sure about what inactive would be, but it probably would be wise to account for how many contributors there are. For example, if a news site went a month without posting an article, I'd probably consider it inactive. Politics in this day and age goes by quick, and I'd expect a whole team of people to be able to catch up. But if a single person running a YouTube channel went a month without posting a video, I'd be inclined to think they were just too busy. It might also be better to consider rate of content rather than the age of the most recent contribution. DietMondrian (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
8. Keep, if we get rid of this page, we might as well remove every other Webshite list. And we should not do that.Daemonspudguy (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• I'm not eligible to vote yet, but while I do concur with Plutocow's summation of the situation, I'm on the fence about completely deleting it. It has the potential to be a valid source for sure, but there's also the potential for legal troubles down the road. Vee (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  There's no need to have eligible user to vote in AfD. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ah. Vee (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Is there no respect for RatWiki's HONORABLE TRADITIONS nowadays? smh. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I thought making a troll account on CP was the only tradition? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Too bad CP restricted account creation. Vee (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• I hope I'm wrong, but who's going to clean this up? I feel like within six months we will have this discussion again. GeeJayK (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  I personally would be skeptical of my abilities to clean it up. However, I trust @DietMondrian's abilities. Andrew5 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  It would likely involve multiple editors given that there are around 390 sites on the list. The bulk of it is in "Conservatives, right-wing, "cultural libertarians", "classical liberals", centrists™, and reactionaries", which makes sense given it's the broadest category. That being said, since it's all already arranged in alphabetical order, it'd be easy to divvy up the work. Maybe one person can claim, say, #-B, another U-W, or whatever. "Other" and "Literal government propaganda" are short enough that one person could handle them in one sitting. DietMondrian (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps a more in depth perusal by those of us with nothing better to do would help? I personally don't think I can even vote, but I unilaterally have decided my opinion is relevant. LeGrandePumbloom (talk) 02:37, 03 November 2022 (UTC)
• It's just over three weeks since the start of the vote, and it's 5-8 favoring Keep. Should we resolve the vote? I'm planning to start commenting out sites that are at least defunct/broken. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Why not just delete the sites instead of commenting them out? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, there's a historical record that anyone can look at to see what was removed, isn't there. Deleting entries it is then. (Sorry, it's Friday night, my brain's already left for the weekend xP) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Jimmy McMillan | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Nonsensical, weird and irrelevant article, written more than ten years ago by user:Nebuchadnezzar, I'll probably try to kill a few of their other articles in the future too. GeeJayK (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
2. I agree with the above. Andrew5 (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
3. The Rent Is Too Damn High was funny back then, but it’s not relevant anymore and really wasn’t important back then either. Should’ve been made as a fun space article and even then it would have aged poorly. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
4. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Could this nomination be formatted properly? Andrew5 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, sorry, I haven't done this in a very long time. GeeJayK (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Time for a blast from the past. (I’m so fucking old). Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Rappin' For Jesus | Result: Moved to funspace

Draft:Rappin' For Jesus (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. The Rational wiki article "Draft:Rappin'For Jesus should be deleted as it is being useless to Rational wiki goals. Snake101201 (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. No reason to delete it, but I think it belongs in the Fun category rather than mainspace. ----Ozzyboo (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Fun-space worthy. Andrew5 (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
3. I guess a fun space could work. Could be part of a greater fun space on Modern Christianity trying to be hip. Patty Pat 18:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• It's just a draft? Of course, it's far from being mainspace worthy in its current state but that's not the reason why we delete drafts Plutocow (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Rome Viharo | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. A friend of Rome Viharo, Laird Shaw a few days ago had his article deleted. Shaw only had a page because RV has one and he ended up targeted by the same suspicious accounts primarily editing RV's article. The edit history of RV's article shows it was created by someone engaging in deception and sockpuppetry, who after abandoning the account he created the article on, used multiple accounts to edit the article, while not admitting to being the article creator. The edit history also shows many other bad actors who have created many sockpuppets on article to attack and disparage RV. I have documented this here on the talk page of article. I found nearly 20 SPA's (single purpose accounts) editing the article to criticise RV with only 1-5 edits on the article or its talk; many of those accounts belong to one or two individuals engaging in extensive sockpuppetry. There has also been a malicious person impersonating Rome Viharo and other people on talk. Again I have documented this here with evidence. As recent as earlier this year someone was impersonating RV again on the article talk while responding to themselves on other fake accounts. Rome Viharo has long complained about harassment and this is clearly seen in the edit history with suspicious accounts, mass sockpuppetry and impersonation accounts. Problematically many of these bad actors have edited the article. As for why RV has an article in the first place, he clashed with some editors on Wikipedia and ended up banned there in 2013. I fail to see how this makes him noticeable to have an article to begin with. Boar (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   For sake of clarification, I don't particularly like Rome Viharo. As I documented here - he himself has used sockpuppets to edit his article and also invited a few of his friends to edit it (meatpuppetry). However, two wrongs don't make a right - the mass socking and impersonations on article and its talk are undeniable harassment and there are far more sockpuppets created by RV's online enemies than himself. I think the edit history of the article is one of the worse on this wiki and it remains unclear why RV has an article. He's a banned ex-Wikipedian who created a website to whine about his ban. Significance? Boar (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

2. I created Laird Shaw's AfD and agree with the above. BUFO (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
3. This guy is basically an internet clown but not a notable one. Every few years he creates a new organization and claims it will revolutionize the world but nobody has heard of him or cares about what he is saying. His website "Wikipedia We Have A Problem" was deleted about 3 years ago and he no longer takes interest in blogging about this website. He has since deleted all his stuff on RationalWiki/Wikipedia. In total, this is basically a guy who was banned on Wikipedia 10 years ago. I am not sure why he needs an article here. Abd Lomax is definitely someone who needs an article here because he has an entire website dedicated to pseudoscience (cholesterol denialism, cold fusion, carnivore diet and now flat earth) and continues to host attacks against this website, but I am not seeing Rome promoting pseudoscience anymore, nor is he attacking users from this website. Johns (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
4. Delete but continue to mention him on Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (he doesn't need a separate article and can just be mentioned on that page). Brisson (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
5. Delete because all the stuff cited on the article is old and most of it has been deleted and only archives remain. viharo has changed his life around he is now an agnostic skeptic and opposes pseudoscience. All the drama cited on the article was from years ago. Is website is closed down and now this guy is only active on Twitter. I would be happy for you all to email him so you can verify he is a changed man. 82.132.234.64 (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

   Viharo seems to always have claimed to be an agnostic skeptic, nothing new. I doubt anyone will email him, he's free to participate in this AfD with his account User:RomeViharo, which is not blocked. BoN, may I ask what prompted you to participate in this AfD? Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. He's still active on Twitter at least. He's a known sockpuppeteer and doxer. I'm a bit suspicious about who User:Boar ("chess" userboxen as sole identifier on home page vs. this[1]) and User:BUFO (new user) are because of Viharo's socking propensity. As an aside, User:Laird (presumably Laird Shaw) was involved in editing the Viharo page from 2014-2015.[2] The Viharo page was apparently previously AfDed in 2014[3] and 2015[4] and possibly 2018 but I can't find any details. Bongolian (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   The 2015 AfD is now at RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Rome Viharo (2015), it was moved to make way for this AfD. Supposedly, Viharo as a BoN commented in the AfD, with the result being 10 to 1 for keep. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   Over at that page is also the 2018 AfD you couldn't find @Bongolian, though it doesn't look like a proper AfD, more like an informal thing. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   Look at the suspicious accounts that voted keep on the 2015 AfD. The very first voter: @Qwed117 - has made only 12 edits on the wiki yet we are expected to believe they randomly stumbled on the AfD (the sole AfD they voted on)? This user is very likely a sockpuppet of someone else. I have documented this here for RV's article and talk edit histories.Boar (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   @Bongolian What evidence is there RV has doxxed anyone? These claims appear to have been inserted into article by bad actors. The only source provided on article for this claim is this link: "Editors and admins involved." No mention of anyone's real name on URL only Wikipedia usernames who communicated with RV. So the reference does not actually match what is claimed. Who inserted this dubious information? And why were they allowed to? Do sysops and moderators of this wiki not bother to patrol edits? Boar (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   An example is on a link given on the current page:[5] Bongolian (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   I don't see any doxxing on the URL. Tim Farley has responded to RV under his real name several times. The only other real name mentioned on the URL is "David". I presume this is mentioned because RV thought in 2015 this was the real name of the article creator since he used the name @David1234. "Goblin Face" who RV complains about was impersonated on his article, I documented this on talk. So it's probable the troll sending RV unsolicited abusive emails was not the Wikipedia user of the same name and he was stirring up trouble. As I documented, there are dozens of impersonation and spoof accounts and it is hard to tell who is really who. No surprise RV was quite confused in 2015 and was trying to make sense off it.Boar (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   That link talks about "some insight into some of my harassers". Surely there's no need to explain what he's talking about here. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

2. Bongolian raises a good point. I hadn't even heard of Laird Shaw before the AfD. BUFO's very first action was to create the Laird Shaw AfD… that makes me wonder what the end goal is. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   Since @Bongolian has stoked my suspicions, I have created an Atim accusing BUFO of being a sockpuppet of Boar. I would like to state for the record that I am making this accusation solely based on Bongolian's word, and I have no clue how accurate it is. I also am not suggesting any harsh action against @Boar, as a brief glance at their contributions list suggests that they are a generally respectable user outside of this weird obsession they have with the reputations of Laird Shaw and Rome Viharo. I'm just saying that this whole situation seems somewhat fishy to me — fishy enough that I feel obligated to call Boar out on making themselves appear to be dishonest. Luigifan18 (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   @Boar, if you do not respond to the concerns of myself and @Bongolian within, oh, let's say three days, I will have to take drastic action. And no, I do not mean blocking you. I don't think you deserve that, so I have something else in mind — specifically, restoring the Laird Shaw article. We don't think you have bad intentions per se, we just have concerns about your integrity that we would like you to address. Luigifan18 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

3. This reminds me of many of Oliver Smith's AFDs, it seems more an attempt at censorship than anything else. Plutocow (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

   I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by censorship. The AfD was created because I discovered extensive impersonations and other suspicious accounts on the edit history, see here. After many years I'm surprised no one looked into this. Rome Viharo has been impersonated on fake accounts as recent as earlier this year and these fake/impersonation/spoof accounts date back to 2014. Boar (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

4. Came here to say what Plutocow said. GeeJayK (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
5. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
6. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
7. -Flandres (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
8. How strange. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 22:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
9. This is one giant clusterfuck. Carthage (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Goat

• There's more to this internet kook than just the wikipedia drama. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Cosmikdebris Can you elaborate? Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  The article itself discusses all the "OS 012" and "Google consciousness" stuff that happened before the wikipedia drama. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That trolling was ten years ago, Viharo has since moved on. Why would you want to quote something ten years ago? Do you not accept people make mistakes or can move on? 82.132.234.64 (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think this AfD has run its course. How about we archive? Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Unsolicited commentary

Not a member here, just follow the drama. If I was, I would vote for a merge redirect, but Viharo never focused or targeted GSoW, he targeted Tim Farley and RationalWiki and he worked with Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra, but that seems limited to simply working on their wikipedia articles.

Lots of strange misinformation in all of this. Its fair to keep an article about Viharo, because he did accuse skeptics of harassment on Wikipedia and RationalWiki, but if you are going to keep the article, I would at least make it accurate and remove all the troll ODS sock puppets edits and you know how the saying goes...do your own research.

Here is Viharo's attack on online skepticism on wikipedia and rationalwiki, his "case study" for his platform https://rome-viharo.medium.com/aiki-wiki-wikipedia-we-have-a-problem-update-pt-3-bddc707bdd22

OS 012 he writes about here https://rome-viharo.medium.com/aiki-wiki-wikipedia-we-have-a-problem-update-pt-2-dc027912a439

His google consciousness tedx talk is probably not fair game, I thought it was about his "theory of consciousness" or something like that, but it turns out thats not what the talk is about at all, the title is a bit deceiving that way ( i wont bore you with the details of the talk) but thats an example of someone who just hates viharo and wants to get skeptics upset and eager to bash him, we can probably do better than that.

Overall, I think his attack on Farley qualifies him for an article here, but cleaned up because this article looks like is was written by someone obsessed with viharo. Viharo has a long history of being very confrontational with skeptics, so let's be fair and say the article should stay because we think he deserves it. Viharo is a concern troll and annoying. I'm sure he will be saying ridiculous things in the future you can ping him with. Toodles.^{— Unsigned, by: 2605:fe80:2100:a105:1::1 / talk / contribs}

The current article opening paragraph:

Rome Viharo (User:RomeViharo) is a disgruntled ex-Wikipedia editor who was banned and then created an entire website named Wikipedia We Have A Problem to pointlessly complain about his ban and whine about "harassment." Although complaining of being harassed, Viharo does the exact same thing, and has doxed Wikipedia editors on his website, while also spreading unfounded allegations (e.g. skeptics create articles on Wikipedia by receiving PayPal cash-payments, or RationalWiki "is gas lighting, lying, & covering up cross platform harassment") and the Guerilla Skepticism conspiracy theory. The forum Wikipediocracy banned him for making these baseless claims.

I can't see how any of this is remotely relevant to the purpose of RationalWiki which is "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement; Documenting the full range of crank ideas; Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism." The guy is a disgruntled and banned Wikipedia editor. Can someone explain?Brisson (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Viharo is mentioned on the Guerilla Skepticism conspiracy theory article. What's written there seems fine. My view is he doesn't need his own article.Brisson (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Viharo is now a skeptic the article is citing things like nine or ten years old. Why cant this website admit people changed, make mistakes or move on? 82.132.234.64 (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

In that case, it would be better to update the article to reflect Viharo's current views. Luigifan18 (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that updating the article and adding anything currently notable would be worthwhile. And that would mean adding to the article rather than deleting it.

There seem to be some voices making an argument along the lines that the article should be deleted because it refers to things that happened in the past or a long time ago. Well everything we know about happened in the past. So it's difficult to not interpret these suggestions in terms of whitewashing.

But, as I said, if there is more current, positive material - then we could certainly include it.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Viharo is not promoting pseudoscience so users here still haven't explained why he needs an article here. 82.132.232.240 (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Solicited commentary from Rome Viharo, confirmed via Twitter

Rome created an account that was just blocked, so I am his friend but I am copying his words below, which you can confirm on twitter: https://twitter.com/rome_viharo/status/1575700536732491778

This is Rome Viharo, confirmed on my twitter account.

https://twitter.com/rome_viharo/status/1575692756306911234

Bisson, thank you for providing sincere analysis and reflection and the opportunity to participate.

I'm not going to weigh in on keeping or deleting this article, that is up to the community here to decide, but I will chime in and provide accurate links that do reflect my views.

If there is a case to make for deletion, it would be for RationalWiki's sake, not mine. Delete the article because the article reads exactly like what it is, an attack piece designed to destroy someone's online reputation out of petty payback from editing Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra's article. I think the article makes RationalWiki look far worse than me, but we have perhaps different standards.

It is true, I am a "concern troll" as I am very concerned with "trolling" as in "online toxic behaviors", it's a big part of my life as a developer. I am very concerned with online misinformation and online disinformation.

Pretty much every link dissected in my article is all about one project that has evolved over 20 years. OS 012, the JREF discussion, BAD science discussion, Wikipedia consensus project, the TedX talk, you will see a consistent theme and thread throughout all of it because it's all the evolution of one project, its field research. I understand that, from the outside, that may all look strange, which is why I did the research anonymously, until my personal identity was discovered and broadcast by a small group of disgruntled editors.

This is an unusually large body of work which you can see evidence of.

At least if it reflected my actual views, it would not nor would it ever have even been a problem.

If you want to know what my current views are, they are reflected primarily on https://bigmotherdao.com/ or my medium blog site (which I don't write to very often). They are my same views for 20 years, just more evolved and developed.

These are the views I broadcast.

https://bigmotherdao.com/whitepapers/

My views on MediaWikis (Wikipedia, Rational Wiki, KiwiFarms, etc)

https://rome-viharo.medium.com/the-mediawiki-problem-d9f6105b3f13

My views on troll farms:

https://rome-viharo.medium.com/troll-farms-and-the-broadcast-of-misinformation-pt-1-83372576342a

https://rome-viharo.medium.com/troll-farms-and-the-broadcast-of-misinformation-ed4ecdd2dba6

https://rome-viharo.medium.com/troll-farms-and-the-broadcast-of-misinformation-pt-3-c360581c1e56

My views on the evolution of Aiki Wiki, which began with a viral theatrical project, OS 012, and evolved over 20 years into Aiki Wiki. I try to be responsible about the process, so let me know if you see any errors.

https://rome-viharo.medium.com/aiki-wiki-wikipedia-we-have-a-problem-update-pt-1-7f029e395987

https://rome-viharo.medium.com/aiki-wiki-wikipedia-we-have-a-problem-update-pt-2-dc027912a439

https://rome-viharo.medium.com/aiki-wiki-wikipedia-we-have-a-problem-update-pt-3-bddc707bdd22

Here is a live demonstration of Aiki Wiki as applied to a DAO studio structure

https://bigmotherdao.com/dao-governance/

With as much animosity as I have had with those who identify themselves as "skeptics", I'm actually really appreciative of the skeptic community, they helped make this project better.

The RationalWiki article, and all articles that emerged from it (Encyclopedia Dramatica, KiwiFarms, a host of bizarre wp sites) did have a very very serious effect on my personal and professional life. I would be lying if I said it did not. Anyone can simply check the article history and look at what the earlier versions were. As a professional, I have had to deal with claims that I am a sociopath, a promoter of pseudoscience, a cyberstalker, an online doxxer, and even a cocaine crazed sex fiend (I kid you not). While I have created a few accounts here, it was out of sheer frustration, as I was banned continually for posting "too much" or "trolling" for creating a few accounts here because my professional and personal life was on the line! I have a child! This had a great effect! Why would anyone expect "civil" behavior from someone who is being attacked in such a way? I hope no one ever has to go through what I went through.

I was an anonymous Wikipedia account, my identity was published and seeded around influencing a small community of editors on Wikipedia who were skeptics and obviously playing dirty. While that could have died down after Wikipedia, RationalWiki continued the harassment I received on Wikipedia.

There is no question that these payback for a very confrontational affair editing Rupert Sheldrake's biography page, which was and is a part of the case study for Aiki Wiki, as informed the Wikipedia community back in 2013.

As all the evidence clearly shows this, everything else has just been bizarro world gaslighting.

This is all detailed in the case study which is falsifiable as all links are recorded on MediaWikis and everyone else in the world seems to realize this except RationalWiki and a few bozos at Wikipediocracy.

So for me, keep or delete; that's up to you.

But since this community inadvertently was ground zero in a personal attack against a developer in online consensus building, why not put all of that behind us?

Why not collaborate on the project in good faith instead of bad if at all? All the bad faith from this community still helped make this project better, what would good faith participation bring? I am not looking to embarrass anyone.

I am not an enemy of "skepticism" that is absurd.

I am worried about the "culture wars" and I am very very concerned that the communication of science is very harmed by all of this ideological divisiveness, from anyone or any group.

I think it's bad for science and bad for the internet, and I can make a clear case about that too. and I hope that RationalWiki can adopt a more (get ready to have a drink, on me) "rational" and self reflective approach.

Best to everyone

Rome

Laird Shaw | Result: delete

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

Delete

1. Laird Shaw is a self-admitted mentally ill man who suffers from psychosis and has schizophrenia. He seems completely non-noticeable to have a RationalWiki article and the page is not charitable to someone with severe mental health issues. The article was only added ~5 years back because of some trolling involving Rome Viharo and the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia controversy, see talk page. BUFO (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
2. I put his photo on page but agree he's probably not suited for an article. He's a co-founder and administrator of a paranormal forum. Has many nutty beliefs but is a schizophrenic, so that's probably expected. Is mostly a nobody (not much of a digital footprint aside from his forum). Was apparently only added because of his connections to Rome Viharo, however, that was years ago. Boar (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
3. I see no reason to keep the page if he's a nobody. Brisson (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
4. This Laird guy says he has been personally abused by demons so he clearly is not all there. He was banned on the Skeptiko forum, the only forum he is active on now is the PsienceQuest which has very low traffic. It's a bit weird to have an article based on just his forum posts. You ask yourself who is this man? Just another nutty nobody as highlighted above but does he deserve an article? I don't think so. I have done some research into this guy, it turns out he was never a fruitarian, he was kicked off the Fruitarian's Network. He used to pal around with Rome Viharo but no longer does that. Based on what I have read on the forum he is a fake vegan. Apart from his PsienceQuest and a silly website he owns he has no internet footprint apart from a Facebook account. There are not really any good sources to write an article about him. Johns (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
5. In addition to the above arguments, it is also not a good article, consisting mostly of quotes. Bongolian (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
6. Support deletion. Documenting the full range of crank ideas is about ideas, and this person seems neither notable (for example, it can be argued that people like Marjorie Taylor Greene don't have any original ideas on their head, yet she is an important spreader of these ideas, so I would support keeping that article if a Articles for Deletion request would be filled for that article) nor has new ideas undocumented anywhere else in the wiki. The article also doesn't provide refutations to their ideas, only quotes, as Bongolian stated. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
7. Not notable or missional. Andrew5 (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. If he's only notable for his connections to Rome Viharo, maybe it's still worth mentioning him on that page. Luigifan18 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

   Nah. Seems like undue weight.Andrew5 (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Berlin transport strike, 1932 | Result: No quorum

Berlin transport strike, 1932 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. I already explained many of my problems with this article on the top page, but in short it makes a "Hitler ate sugar"-level argument of a red-brown alliance and has questionable relevance to the greater history of Naziism and communism as a hole. It may be worth a footnote in a page like National Bolshevism, but not really its own article. Plutocow (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
2. Per my comments on the talk page.(Though I wouldn't object to Merge.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
3. To anyone saying "merge into National Bolshevism"; the page doesn't accomodate for that at the moment. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

   What about Diet's proposal? Andrew5 (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

4. Merging into National Bolshevism doesn't make any sense. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
5. The strike happened within the context of local opposition to a local government. The author obviously wants us to infer the communists and fascists had some mutual goals in mind, or a shared ideology, but in fact there was much more co-operation between the communists and the SPD (such as when the communist Red Front assigned a protection detail to SPD Reichstag deputy Otto Buchwitz, after he was threatened by Nazis chanting "death to Buchwitz" following a brawl); and between the fascists and the other nationalists (such as the Harzburg Front).Tristan (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. missional and CRUCIAL topic needs own article -- poster of afd ought to improve stub if desired as oppose to call for delete Low computer battery (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

   Can you explain how it's crucial? Bongolian (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

   rw purpose pt. 3 exploring and understanding authoritarianism ought include full comprehending of nazi rise to power -- 1932 strike facilitated national socialist takeover by preventing spd coalition control of weimar government and causing chain of events letting hitler ascend Low computer battery (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

   Is this based on any particular historian's view or is it your own view? Tristan (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge into National Bolshevism. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
2. Bongolian (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
3. Scream!! (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
4. Plutocow is calling for too little of a merge. Andrew5 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
5. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
6. I'd say it fits better in the Nazism article, under "Origins", since this incident is part of how the Nazis rose to power. First, though, it ought to be tweaked to focus on why exactly the two groups decided to collaborate. The article mentions how the two groups would get into fights on the streets—so why were they suddenly striking together? That aspect seems pretty unclear. DietMondrian (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   I love that idea. Andrew5 (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• merge would create confusion -- nazi-communist 1932 strike alliance NOT direct expression of syncretic nazbol ideology Low computer battery (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• It and Landtag referendum, 1931 probably deserve merged into some kind of larger article about Weimar Germany or something. But not sure what is best target. Both incidents are historically only important when viewed in context of Nazism and German communism: if it was just a random far-right party teaming up with a random far-left party in another country, it would never have an article. --Annanoon (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Wikipedia has an article on Communazi. Maybe we can add the Berlin strike into a new Communazi article amongst other communazi stuff. Or maybe add it to the horseshoe theory article. LongStylus (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Critical legal studies | Result: Burnt to the ground

Critical legal studies (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. There are so many problems with this article, and a lot of people on the talkpage seem to agree with me. The article has very little sources and the ones it does have aren't great, with two Wikipedia references and a couple of out-of-context quotes. The article doesn't really try to engage with its subject and just feels like a huge strawman. And that's on top of the fact that it is just incredibly out of date and has no mentions of any recent applications of CLS. Since we have a better article on the related subject of critical race theory right now, I'd feel safe burning the CLS article down and if anyone wants to try again, they're better off starting anew. Plutocow (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
2. Pretty bad. GeeJayK (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
3. I have no background knowledge on the subject, but this article makes some wild claims with no attempt at citation or supporting evidence. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
4. Bongolian (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Stephenie Meyer | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. Four people on the talk page, myself included, have argued that the article is non-missional. It may be universally agreed that Twilight is badly written, but bad writing, by itself, is not a crime against rationality, and the article as written doesn't even critically examine Twilight. Its current content can be reduced to "Boo." Half of it isn't even about Meyer but rather derivative works. Linneris (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

   I wouldn't exactly go by that especially because one of them, Epic Games, got banned for pi months and nearly permabanned after that comment. Andrew5 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

   Ad hominem! Though I admit I don't have particularly strong feelings on this issue. - Linneris (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

   Not the first time Andrew5 is acting annoying and nerve-grindingly officious. There's a reason this user is still sysoprevoked. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

2. 

GeeJayK (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. It falls under point 4 of the mission, and given the fall of Roe v. Wade Twilight's anti-abortion message is more relevant than ever to cover. It is in desperate need of a cleanup, but there are a lot of articles I could say that about. Plutocow (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
2. It's not often I agree with Plutocow on deletion discussions, but for once they raise a good message. Andrew5 (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
3. I like this article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
4. -Flandres (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
5. What Plutocow said. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
6. Per Plutocow. That being said, the article should use a rewrite. It used to delve into how "weird" it is for Meyer to write essentially a self-insert in a wish fulfillment fantasy but that's not particularly unusual when you're writing works of fiction. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

John Glynn | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. The article's relevant content already exists on Quillette and The Skeptics Society, so it is redundant, and since there is little information about Glynn online except that he perpetuated this hoax (i.e. there's little information on his background or motivations) there's not really much hope for improvement. Plutocow (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
2. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 03:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
3. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
4. The Wikipedia article I found was certainly for a different Glynn from the 1700s. Andrew5 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
5. -Flandres (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Martin Smith | Result: Speedily deleted

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

Delete

1. First of all, this article is poorly written, not going into detail into any of the guy's views. Secondly, this guy isn't very important, with the only relevant part of the article being the mishandling of the rape allegation... which is already covered in Socialist Workers Party! In short, this article is pointless. Plutocow (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
2. It is a pointless page. No one in the movement knows who the hell he is--April ^Chat?
3. Make it go away. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
4. Insignificant. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
5. -Flandres (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

James C. Oliver | Result: Deleted

James C. Oliver (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Is this guy really missional at all? He doesn't seem to have any particular crank or authoritarian views and this seems to just be an article on a random politician who isn't even that important in the grand scheme of things. If there is something I am missing, feel free to let me know, but this just seems blatantly unmissional. Plutocow (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

   oliver maintained hardline isolationism consistent -- primary defeat represented nation shift toward internationalist thought -- important to understand american political history Low computer battery (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

2. Bye 71.208.x.x (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
3. Perhaps the salient points can be boiled down and placed in Isolationism, which deserves expansion. As a standalone article, I agree that is is not really missional. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Low computer battery (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge relevant information into Isolationism. ~Andrew5 (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Goat

1. lameness 101 -- wasting time attempting delete well-researched work than contributing more work oneself Low computer battery (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

   It doesn't matter how "well-researched" it is if it's not missional. Plus, I have written several articles on this site so I don't know what you're talking about. Plutocow (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine | Result: moved to draft space

Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Seriously, why? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
2. This almost reads like a brochure. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

   why don't we move the page to draftspace until it can be improved sufficiently? Bongolian (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

   Why not. My concern was that it sat there in its present (awful) state forever. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. 1) It's missional. 2) It definitely needs improvement. 3) The WP page is one that is likely to be forever bad and misleading because of NPOV. While WP will allow criticism of crankery on general pages (e.g., naturopathy), there is ingrained pushback against adding generic criticism of crankery on business-specific pages like this one. Bongolian (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

James Huberty | Result: Vaporized

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

Delete

1. This page puts excessive emphasis on the perpetrator, giving a vaguely sympathetic portrayal (devoutly religious, mental illness, reliable worker, etc.). As I noted on the talk page (Talk:James Huberty), pages on mass shooter events should roughly ("Give serious thought to the frequency with which you mention the shooter’s name. Stories of the victims should be given much more weight than the story of the shooter. We recommend naming the shooter 'infrequently and only when only [the] name is critical to understanding the story.'"[6]). Bongolian (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

   @BJA2112, Monet, and Plutocow BJA2112 has deleted this page again. Can we get agreement on deleting this page? Since the sole author of the page, BJA2112, has agreed that it should be deleted, I don't think there's much likelihood that it is going remain. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

2. The author has agreed to have it deleted; there's no need to drag this out out of some pursuit of bureaucracy. Plutocow (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
3. The article doesn't comply with our mission:
   1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
   2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
   3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
   4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

The page brings up extreme religious beliefs as a factor for the person's antisocial behavior and mentions his conspiratorial beliefs, which is as close as the article gets to being "missional". But mentioning those things can go counter against our mission entirely. Is it really appropriate to imply a link between religious extremism and mass shootings? Plus, his conspiracy theory seems to be a symptom of his mental health problem, not a cause of the shooting. But Bongolian also brings up a good point that even if we were to keep this page, we should handle the topic extremely delicately. As the RTDNA guideline points out: "Don’t look for simple causes to explain complex events. Multiple factors generally contribute to someone committing a mass shooting. Be careful not to focus on the search for a simple motive. It may not exist." We also don't want to glorify mass shooters nor inspire others to commit mass shootings. LongStylus (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Authoritarian wingnuttery | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Let's keep it going. G Man (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
2. This one and the rest of them.--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Andrew5 (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

   In spite of objections, I am affirming my delete stance. Yes, RW is meant to explore authoritarianism, but this doesn't mean create a vague and subjective category for it. This and Category:Authoritarian moonbattery can be merged into Category:Authoritarianism. No need for a seperate category. Andrew5 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

4. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Spud (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
6. Patty Pat 19:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
7. Christopher (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
8. GeeJayK (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

   2620:F3:8000:5050:95E1:4AB5:9E96:844D (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

2. A lot of pages use this category. 2600:387:B:9:0:0:0:75 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

   Not a reason for keeping. Techpriest can get Inferno Bot running to clear categories, and just because pages have them, doesn't mean we should be keeping faulty categories. -Andrew5 (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

3. Labels the individual who has gone over the edge as either libertarian or authoritarian and whether they are left or right-wing. 2620:F3:8000:5050:D158:C4C5:7E5E:A80 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
4. "Explorations of authoritarianism" is literally #3 in the purpose of RatWiki. If you don't want to call it "wingnuttery", just call it "Goose-stepping Authoritarians" or something. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

   This could easily be merged into Category:Authoritarianism, along with the one for authoritarian moonbattery. Also - moonbat and wignut are actual political terms used, no one uses goose stepping. Andrew5 (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

5. Might need a rename but such a category is useful. Plutocow (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
6. This proposal is idiotic. 71.208.x.x (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Do we strike out IP votes? I saw someone did but I don't remember this being enforced or in the CS. Andrew5 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• I checked the geolocations, one of them is Chicago, the other one to Clearlake, CA so the chance of sockpuppetry is low; that being said, the one in Clearlake is on a range globally blocked on Wikipedia for abuse, but it's also a public T-Mobile range, I thought I'd put it down here. Andrew5 (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Why are these all still open? Until today, there were no new votes on this one in almost a month. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 19:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Because @Techpriest hasn’t gotten Inferno Bot to remove the categories from all the pages yet. Christopher (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  That strikes me as a silly reason to keep voting open through such an unusually long time with no activity. Presumably, if the consensus on April 2 had been in favor of 'keep,' these all would have been closed a long time ago. I don't see why a vote favoring 'delete' needs to be kept open until the pages are actually deleted. Perhaps I'm biased, though, since I favor deleting all of these. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 19:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Tempted to post an ATIM request on this...sadly, as it is linked on over 600 pages, it can't be removed by hand. Andrew5 (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Ok, I posted a request at RW:TS, this is taking forever. Andrew5 (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Can someone contact Techpriest directly? Even the RW:TS request got no reply in days. Andrew5 (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Conservative wingnuttery | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. I say delete. G Man (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
2. This one and the rest of them.--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
3. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Spud (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Purge political insanity. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 03:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Change to just wignuttery, as one of the main 3. Andrew5 (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
2. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Libertarian wingnuttery | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. I vote delete. G Man (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
2. This one and the rest of them.--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Andrew5 (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
4. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Spud (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
6. Patty Pat 16:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Nationalist wingnuttery | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. delete. G Man (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
2. This one and the rest of them.--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Per all of the other AFDs. Andrew5 (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
4. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Spud (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
6. Patty Pat 16:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• So how much overlap is there between this and Category:Nationalism? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:Liberal moonbattery | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Like the other moonbat/wingnut categories, it's too vague and subjective. Magic Master (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

   Keep the main 3, delete the rest Andrew5 (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

2. Hastur! (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Spud (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
4. G Man (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
5. This one and the rest of them.--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
6. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Patty Pat 15:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Change to just moonbattery. Inmate XIII (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
2. This is one of the main 3 I was referring to. Andrew5 (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
3. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

2016 primaries and caucuses | Result: Deleted

2016 primaries and caucuses (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. The list contains no missional content, the information can easily be provided with am external link, and it's just not relevant in this day and age. There's just no point in keeping this article. Plutocow (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
2. Nothing useful will be lost by vaporizing this one. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
3. -Flandres (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
4. No idea why it was made in the first place. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
5. It is not necessary to hold onto a page with regard to an election season not particularly germane to any present-day affairs.-April ^Chat? 20:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Redirect into 2016 U.S. presidential election, this is a plausible search term. Merge any salvageable content (with rewriting) in there as well. Andrew5 (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Libertarian moonbattery | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Much like its other moonbattery and wingnuttery categories, it's too subjective and vague. Magic Master (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Keep the main 3, delete the rest Andrew5 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Burn it. Inmate XIII (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Hastur! (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Spud (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
6. Delete. G Man (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
7. This one and the rest of them.--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
8. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Cleanup initiated. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Authoritarian moonbattery | Result: Purged

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

Delete

1. Much like its other related wingnuttery/moonbattery categories, it's too subjective and vague. Magic Master (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
2. As I've said on the other AFDs. Andrew5 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Sure. Inmate XIII (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Spud (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Delete them all. G Man (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
6. This one and the rest of them.--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
7. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
8. I have to ask. Why does this and the other (whatever) moonbattery articles even exist?--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
2. 2620:F3:8000:5050:95E1:4AB5:9E96:844D (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

   wait, BoNs are allowed to vote? — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 05:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

   It never says anywhere that BoNs aren’t allowed to vote, so yes. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Cleanup initiated. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Removed. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Door Frankema | Result: deleted

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

Delete

1. Tiny stub for 6 years, close to being deleted in it's previous AFD. We don't need an AFD for every antivaxxer, especially when I could find no sources on her that isn't social media. Any relevant information can easily be contained in another article. Andrew5 (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
2. Generic antivax moron. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
3. Agreed. BruceGrubb (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
4. Unlikely to be expanded. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
5. As a wise man once said, "Do we need to have an article on every ant-vaxxer?" Spud (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Centrist stupidity | Result: Kept

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

Delete

1. if we go ahead and delete all categories, i'll cast my vote for deleting this one, also. G Man (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
2. if you've havent called for the masses to rise up and drown capitalism in a sea of blood, but not keen on swastikas, you are centrist stupidity. seriously why are doing this one article at a time? is there not a way of downloading all the cats to a spreadsheet with whatever relevent data to get an overview of what it all looks like and see what and how it can all be made useful? i dont fancy having to argue the toss over which meaningless vague jibe is actually serious political classification and which is there because 'poopy face' isnt a cat? and why racist in some places racism in others or lgbt bigot vs homophobe vs homophobia, and so on AMassiveGay (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

   as a meaningless phrase used by activists whose only activisting is declaring anything and everything centrist and stupid, on the talk page for tintin on this wiki, i suggested 'the blue lotus' was more racist than 'in america'. that was apparently stupid and centrist and just typical of stupid centrists. not convinced its going to be any more applicable anywhere elseAMassiveGay (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

   what are these political stupity cats meant to convey? is there not more useful cat that would have the same intent but more useful and more specific? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

3. I support deleting all political insanity categories (as it seems most do), this one seems like it’s the closest to being kept. Christopher (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 23:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
5. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
6. Delete. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. This is one of the main 3, but per the recent precedent of deleting political insanity categories solely as a procedual nomination, I support keeping. Andrew5 (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
2. What Andrew said. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
3. This one is entirely missional, seeing as centrism for the sake of centrism is a massive problem in both the U.S. and around the world and has contributes in no small part to the current strength of the far-right. Inmate XIII (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
4. I'll second what Inmate said. Centrist stupidity is a real thing. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Plutocow (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
6. Out of the political insanity categories, this is the only one I'd say should be kept. Centrism is flawed and is part of the problems the world is facing today. Magic Master (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
7. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
8. -Flandres (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• If centrism is inherently stupid (a vague claim), then the category is redundant (and vague) and the centrism category is sufficient. Otherwise, 'centrist stupidity' is just as subjective as 'socialist moonbattery', the only difference being that 'stupid' isn't quite as derogatory as 'moonbat'. Far-right nonsense is also a real problem, but that doesn't make 'conservative wingnuttery' a good category, nor would it make 'conservative stupidity' a good category. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 03:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  No one is arguing that centrism is inherently stupid, the argument that centrists acting stupid by trying to occupy the middle ground in any debate, even when there is no good reason to, only helps the more unreasonable side (e.g. Democrats constantly trying to compromise the GOP for the sale of bipartisanship when the Repubs have outright said they refuse any compromise). Which I would argue is missional. Inmate XIII (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  as serene points out if it isnt inherent then its entirely subjective. your example is entirely subjective, the fact people somehow think that their point of view or opinions are not at all subjective is why such cats are complete wank AMassiveGay (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I really don’t see any reason this category should survive whilst the others are deleted. Christopher (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Should this be closed as keep? The vote is 8-6 to keep and was oustanding for almost 2 months. Andrew5 (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Enemies of Reason | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. This article contains no real information, and there have been no attempts at improvement for nearly a decade. Plutocow (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
2. The article has a fair amount of context, but appears to be a stub stopped short. That wouldn't normally be a problem, but it's Wikipedia counterpart has an orange tag for a lack of sources, suggesting it will be hard to find reliable sources to improve it. Hence my vote is in favor of deletion. Andrew5 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
3. Ten years as a tiny stub? Vaporize it. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

   Ten year anniversary on Wednesday. Andrew5 (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

4. -Flandres (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
5. Bongolian (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Wild Bill for America | Result: Deleted

Wild Bill for America (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. An obscure wingnut Youtuber with very limited notoriety, profiled in a poorly written, unsourced article. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
2. Seems like an unexceptional moron. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
3. The website isn't even ranked on SimilarWeb, and most of the search results return the wild west gunman. This would be forgivable if they were a particularly exceptional crank, but they just seem to be a standard Tea Party moron. Plutocow (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
4. I haven't heard of this guy before, but it really looks like (from a cursory search) the guy's only claim to fame is that the Amazing Atheist made a few videos about him, and spoke about him on his podcast. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
5. Why wasn't this part of the Great YouTube purge? We had it for a reason, 11 months ago. Oh well. Andrew5 (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

   He's not really a YouTuber, and I couldn't find his account (if he even has one), he seems to use his own website to post content. Plutocow (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

   He’s not in the YouTube category, which we used for the purge. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

   Well, I stand corrected. Although to be fair, it was in the original deletion nomination statement, so it's understandable why I thought so. Andrew5 (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

National Transportation Safety Board | Result: Deleted

National Transportation Safety Board (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Really short, really old, and not really missional. It can go. Plutocow (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
2. Was this supposed to be related to 9/11 conspiracies? I don't think it justifies having its own article. Unless there's some sort of major NTSB conspiracy out there that I've never heard of. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
3. Tiny stub. If something more can be made of this topic, someone can start from scratch with no extra effort. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
4. Andrew5 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
5. This article doesn't seem to be of any use at all here. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 21:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Essay:Don’t suck your own dick | Result: spam deleted

Essay:Don’t suck your own dick (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Essay is off-mission and borderline nonsense. I say we get rid of it. 71.208.x.x (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
2. Essay is pretty discriminatory. Not everyone reading the essay has a penis. LongStylus (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

   71.208.x.x (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

   I really hope you’re joking long stylus 2600:1700:15EB:2810:EDB9:D5B0:E384:72F1 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Feminist moonbattery | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Too subjective and vague. Magic Master (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Wow. Andrew5 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Hastur! (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Spud (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Just get rid of it. G Man (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
6. This one and the rest of them.--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
7. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
8. — Exaskliri _(they/them) (talk | contribs) 15:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Change it to something else. Outlining this kind of woo is missional, but the name of this category is unsuitable. Inmate XIII (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
2. I think there are some articles involved that would be better suited for a "Radfem" subcategory of "Feminism" (e.g. TERFs, bi/pan lesbian exclusionism, etc.) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• I think it's pretty safe to delete, and since they're are only 21 instances and it's been open, I'll remove them. Please delete this, first admin who sees this. Andrew5 (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Blonde In The Belly Of The Beast | Result: 5-4 for over a week, it stays for now.

Blonde In The Belly Of The Beast (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Page on a non-notable Youtuber and doesn't advance the site's mission. Magic Master (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
2. She isn't really active now anyway, her last stream being 3 months ago, then 4, and then 8. She only has 124,000 subscribers, which in this day and age isn't really notable. Also, please see RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_2021#June_2021, which contains the Great YouTube purge. We deleted Three Arrows for only having ~300,000 subs, which is still more then this. I also am not impressed with the article quality. If someone updates and revises it I'd be open to keeping, but as it is it shouldn't stay. Andrew5 (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
3. -Hastur! (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
4. YouTube article, she's not even very active. GeeJayK (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. The thing I learned when combing through articles to add to the Florida category is that we cover a lot of nobodies. Hell, people like Issac Bourne and Robin Falkov don't even have Wikipedia pages. And that is to be expected, given that we cover cranks we are bound to cover people well outside the mainstream. And this person is definitely missional to cover, and 125,000 subscribers is not insignificant. I think the article should be kept. Plutocow (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Relatively relevant. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Would you believe she meets our current notability threshold for an article on a YouTuber 125 times over? (We obviously need to revise and update the idea of how many subscribers makes a YouTuber notable enough for us.) Spud (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
4. I have a soft spot for this article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
5. And I still very opposed to that deletion of Three Arrow's page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

   We know, you bludgeoned the discussion, but what's important is that it had 6-2 support to delete, setting a precedent. Notability isn't established yet; we need her to be mentioned in at least some sources. As Spud said, documenting the full range of crank ideas doesn't mention we need a page for every cranker, we should be covering ideas. Andrew5 (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• As it stands, many of the claims in the article are bare assertions, and there are stylistic issues (fair bit of second person). The subject seems missional, though, and I’m not sure I’d endorse starting from scratch. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 04:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hegemony | Result: Delete

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

Delete

1. I disagree that its not missional in that it very well could be, but in its current form it is just awful. I mean, the second sentence is blatantly wrong and it just goes downhill from there There is some decent information in there, but separating the good from the bad would take more work than it is worth (e.g. how is Pakistan under military occupation from the U.S.????); frankly the whole thing looks to be written by one or more tankies as an excuse to shit on the West. if this were Wikipedia I would say TNT it, that is erase the whole thing and rewrite it from the ground up. Inmate XIII (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
2. What kind of dogshit is this? Praising Hegemony, utterly farcical attempts at history and sociology, garbage understanding of international politics, poor formatting, and just plain doesn't know what any of the subjects it touches upon are or how they work. Burn it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

   Also it's not a fucking essay. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

3. If there was clear authorship, essayspace might be an option, but that is not the case. Bongolian (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
4. This is the last time I'm flip flopping.Andrew5 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Move to essay space. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

   I could support that. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

2. Essay space. TranslationForAll (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Switched

   SWitching to essayspace to avoid no-consensus limbo. Andrew5 (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

   @Andrew5, Cosmikdebris, and TranslationForAll Essayspace is not the place for problem articles. If you must move it somewhere, move it to draftspace. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

   @GrammarCommie This isn't a problem article, it's an incoherent writing best left for essayspace. Draftspace won't help, it's really an essay. Andrew5 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

   @Andrew5 It is not an essay. It is not structured as an essay. Essayspace should not be cluttered due to your ignorance and laziness. Either move it to draftspace or delete it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

   Fair point. Andrew5 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• The big changes on this page were made by User:Darth Ravigious (diff). Instead of deleting, perhaps consider rolling back to the contents of this diff, which whilst a stub, is probably actually informative and not a screed. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ok then. TranslationForAll (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Category:Neurodivergent people | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. I don’t anticipate this one being very controversial, there was already agreement on the talkpage. The category is ill-defined, with no two people agreeing on which conditions fall under the neurodiversity banner; do we add every schizophrenic conspiracy theorist? It’s also completely pointless. Christopher (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

   Pinging @Rockford the Roe since he made it. Christopher (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

2. Literally 2 pages. This category is very not necessary. We don't need it. Andrew5 (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
3. too little pages. TranslationForAll (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
4. I don't see the point in having such a category. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Only two people in the category: reason enough to delete. Bongolian (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Nationalist moonbattery | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Too vague and subjective. Magic Master (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Andrew5 (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Inmate XIII (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Hastur! (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Spud (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
6. G Man (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
7. This one and the rest of them.--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
8. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• I cleared the category (since it was only linked 16 times), we can delete it now.Andrew5 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Andrew5 please don’t remove any of the others, you’re spamming recent changes and wasting your own time. Techpriest can very easily get Inferno Bot to do it. Christopher (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't, except (a) Techpriest isn't very active and (b) she wouldn't listen to me, so someone else would have to make the request. And there are some AFDs with over 600 transclusions, that we're gonna have to wait on. Andrew5 (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Socialist moonbattery | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. This category is vague, pointless, redundant, and therefore ultimately distracting to this site's mission. I mean literally any one of the other three "moonbattery" categories suffice for any given subject. Besides, there's an imbalance in the moonbat-wingnut ratio: there's at least one (perhaps two) category for moonbat than wingnut. G Man (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Most of the "fill in the blank" moonbat/wingnut categories have seemed pointless and all too subjective to me. This is no exception.-Flandres (talk)
3. Purge the political insanity categories. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 15:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
4. All of the political insanity categories should be deleted. Christopher (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
5. This and all the related wingnuttery/moonbattery categories should be culled. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
6. This and the rest.--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
7. The use of mental illness as a pejorative has driven me up a wall. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
8. Aye. Inmate XIII (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
9. Yes. All the political insanity categories should indeed be deleted. Spud (talk)
10. I feel like this and the other moonbattery/wingnuttery categories are too subjective and vague to keep. Magic Master (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
11. We don't need this many specific categories. I agree with User:Inmate XIII below - make 3 general categories, delete the rest. Andrew5 (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
12. -Hastur! (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
13. That's enough votes, we should delete it now. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 04:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

    I think we're waiting on a consensus for these categories in general. Andrew5 (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

    We are. That's the reason I haven't deleted the page yet, even though it's been 10 days since i put this up for a vote. G Man (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    We have several political insanity categories at AFD, though. My suggestion - procedual close those AFDs, and on this AFD, open up a vote on keeping the political insanity categories, keeping the main 3, and deleting all of them but there is probably a cleaner way. Andrew5 (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    As you can see below, some specifically want voting on each of these categories, together with the support for deleting all of them being strong. Thus, what is waited for is, firstly, an AfD to be opened and ran on each category. Magic Master started some of the AfDs, but stopped about halfway. The best way to get all this unstuck is probably to add the rest of the AfDs and vote on them. Then further discussion and whatever further voting ends up done may unfold. More seem to agree on removing the categories than on what should exist in their place, so this could possibly be discussed in part in two steps. The other AfDs shouldn't be closed prematurely unless there's a vote on and a decision to change approach. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

    I am opposed to letting individual AFDs sort out the issue because then we can have a subjective mess due to voter trends. Thus, I believe a vote here is the most logical approach. Having 20 AFDs is going to become messy, and also bloat the log as other AFDs get less attention. I believe here is the best place for such a vote, and the other AFDs wil offer nothing but duplication and are unnecessary if a big vote is opened below. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

    Earlier, I also suggested simpler voting for all the categories, but it's too late now, because an approach has already been put into use and it would be messier to try to change it in the middle of it all. And having 10 (or maybe 12 later) AfDs is not a disaster, just a little more tedious. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

    I didn't read through this AFD carefully so I don't know if there was a consensus to open them up as indivisual AFDs. If there was, it has to continue the way it is. If not though, then it was an attempt to subvert consensus and it should be reverted. If procedual closing is an issue, the AFDs can be deleted. Andrew5 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

    That being said, I did open up the final AFD for procedual reasons only; I support keeping. Andrew5 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

14. — Exaskliri _(they/them) (talk | contribs) 15:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. I think the snark draws people in so that we can then tell them the rational POV (frankly if wasn’t for this website’s is and Penn and Teller’s humor I would still believe in Greys and ghosts).. Frankly there are a lot of socialists and frankly socialism as a whole doesn’t hold up to speed with the modern science of economics and certain socialists can be a handful and be quite crap. I say as long as there’s Glenn Greenwald, George Galloway, Grover Furr, Neo-Marxists-Leninist, tankies, and other such groups I say we keep the categoryJakester499 (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Did that fix things? I think some of it might still be in the cache. Ah well. Now we have proper vote categories. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'd support purging all political insanity categories, not only one. IMO imbalance is not a problem. While there are more moonbat categories, there are more people on the wingnut categories. GeeJayK (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  that's a fair assessment, but i still think this category should be deleted. it's still pointless and redundant (see our article on tautology). might as well create a "round circles" category while we're at it. G Man (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  correction: ok, it's not a tautology, nor is it necessarily redundant; however, it is still the most pointless "political insanity" category, since we already have multiple categories for moonbats and socialism/socialists. just use those instead. however, if everyone agrees to just take out the trash and purge all relevant categories, i won't object to that. G Man (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• i'm seeing a lot of votes in favor of deleting all political insanity categories. should i bring the others up for a vote? G Man (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, do it. 2804:14C:5B72:8E20:E997:25B8:60AB:FFBB (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Alternatively, we could see if there's any objections to deleting them all. Any objections? If there's none, or a clear majority for deleting them all, maybe this one AfD will suffice for that too. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  A cursory look at the various moonbattery/wingnuttery categories reveals:

  • Category:Liberal moonbattery 2 subcategories 78 pages
  • Category:Authoritarian wingnuttery 19 subcategories 607 pages
  • Category:Authoritarian moonbattery 4 subcategories 128 pages
  • Category:Feminist moonbattery 1 subcategory 22 pages
  • Category:Conservative wingnuttery 13 subcategories 525 pages
  • Category:Libertarian wingnuttery 4 subcategories 193 pages
  • Category:Libertarian moonbattery 1 subcategory 62 pages
  • Category:Nationalist wingnuttery 11 pages

  I strongly object to deleting any of these categories, as there are a lot of page that link to them. How to re-arrange the taxonomy of the wiki should be a separate discussion. The mooonbat/wingnut categories are a historical relic of the snark of RationalWiki, and even though the taxonomy sucks, mucking around with it should be planned and executed by consensus instead of mass deletion. I am in favor of deleting them all eventually, but not before individual AfDs. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 04:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cosmikdebris that's fair game. for now, we can just stick with this one. maybe we can just rename some of the categories (or in the very least, the parent "political insanity" category). G Man (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

also, if you don't mind me asking, didn't you say earlier that they should all be culled? did you change your mind after you found out how many articles were linked to them or something? G Man (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

yeah, I think they should all be culled. I haven't changed my mind. But, it's a non-trivial amount of work if we decide to do this, and we should build up a consensus on a plan to do it. I imagine that a bot could be built to remove the category "Authoritarian wingnuttery" from 607 pages in a minute or two if the community decided to delete that category. I would still like to get community feedback before we do anything like that. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 04:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If I may make a suggestion? Cull everything but Category:Conservative wingnuttery and Category:Liberal moonbattery, rename them to just "Wingnuttery" and "Moonbattery", lump all the right-wing idiocy into the former, left-wing (socialist or progressive) insanity into the latter, and then dump standard liberalism-based crazy shit into Category:Centrist_stupidity

That way we're only down to three categories. Inmate XIII (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point adding/keeping such, as the dislike is mainly for too subjective categories, which in fairly recent discussion a bunch of people no longer see as worth keeping. But no clear plan of action resulted before now. Personally, I'll also vote for deleting the "Centrist stupidity" category, and maybe some categories outside "Political insanity" if they are AfD'd.

For political orientations, there's also already related but less subjective categories like commies/communism and fascists/fascism on the more extreme ends of the political spectrum, which would remain, and if more are needed they could be made (e.g. there's a plain "centrism" but not "centrists", which could be made). The subcategories inside of each wingnuts/moonbats/etc. category are also different/"better" and would presumably be kept outside those labels, and at least most of them are already in other categories too.

@Cosmikdebris More AfDs, then... Do you have more in mind than a clear decision on each category as consensus for proceeding? Using a bot seems sensible once removals are decided upon. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I would strongly argue against deleting rhe "Centrist Stupidity" category on the grounds that it is missional. One of the biggest criticisms of centrism and centrists both on and off this site is that when they make a strong commitment to centrism for centrism's sake, they only succeed in helping authoritarians and right-wingers, and I feel that category is useful for outlining that. I'll admit it can be improved, possibly be given a proper format like a lot of the other political lunacy categories instead of just a vague paragraph at the top. Inmate XIII (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Such issues related to centrism and centrists are good to cover, yes, but how well does the category really work for that? I think that politics and politicians tend to be plopped into it based largely on their position on the political spectrum, and possibly any strong feelings the categorizer has, which is basically the problem with other contentious political categories too. If you want to cover a related thing with precision, like for example examples of the balance fallacy (one of the intended uses for "Centrist stupidity"), then having a category explicitly only about that may be better, I think. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I went through and purged the list a bit over the past couple days. I see what you mean, but I think we'd be better off keeping and revamping it than just scrapping it altogether, especially since it goes beyond the scope of just idiots adhering to the balance fallacy (e.g. Obama is on there for trying to be bipartisan when everyone with a brain knew that wouldn't work). I'd be willing to do the legwork myself if that's what it takes.

That being said, if I'm the only one who feels the need to keep that category, then it is what it is and I'll find something else to work on. Inmate XIII (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I actually, of all people, agree with you.Andrew5 (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cosmikdebris i see what you mean now. thanks for elaborating. also, i like @Inmate XIII's idea of just boiling it down to a few major categories "moonbattery/wingnuttery/centrist stupidity". that seems like a fair compromise. G Man (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I dislike that proposal; those categories would remain vague and highly subjective. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 03:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: from a technical perspective User:Inferno Bot can and has been used to remove categories in the past. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We should do a vote this: delete every political insanity category, keep three main ones, or keep all of them. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 10:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• So it's been 10 days since I opened this up for a vote. Before we vaporize the category page, what have we decided about the rest of the categories? G Man (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  The other AFDs have strong consensus on deleting, but given how messy it is I am not sure. Please see the discussion above, for vote #13 for deleting (Sqrt) for more discussion on this. Andrew5 (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• hey guys! since we are debating the fate of the other categories in the other afds, i've already gone ahead and deleted this one. G Man (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Christopher undeleted it until Inferno Bot can run it, so the AFD is technically reopened for now (won't make a difference though.) Andrew5 (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• @G Man @Christopher Might take some time to purge, but i did clear the category. We can delete it now. Andrew5 (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

John Best | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. To me, this article seems to be a piece of social pornography. The subject does not seem to have done anything except writing to his obscure hate blog. Antagonizing non-public characters who apparently have issues does not further RW mission, nor does feeding the trolls. Precedent: RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Oliver Canby. 2001:2003:F4A4:B700:A9C6:5D42:F3B4:2D69 (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
2. I looked at the blog. It hasn't posted anything since 2017 and never got any comments or reactions on those posts either. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
3. I do not find the keep votes convicing, hence my vote is for deletion. Andrew5 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
4. A complete nobody Christopher (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

   Andrew5 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

   It's worth noting that we do have other articles on nobodies, and the part of our mission that says "to document the full range of crank ideas" makes that inevitable. Is there anything that separates this from similar cases? Plutocow (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

   We have too many articles on nobodies. As has been stated before, this is the same as Oliver Canby, which had 7-0 consensus in favor of deletion back in August. Honestly, if we were to document the full range of crank ideas then UShistoryanalyzer would have an article already. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

5. -Hastur! (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
6. Documenting the full range of crank ideas doesn't mean we have to document every single nobody that expresses them. Quite the opposite in fact. We should be primarily about ideas, not people. Spud (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
7. None of their blogs have been active in years, and I'm sympathetic to Spud's take on this. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 14:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Seems like enough of a crank to keep, though we may want to refocus it on the other blogs as per Serene. Plutocow (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Bongolian (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• The blog seems not to have been updated since 2017, and a search for 'john best hating autism' returns our article first, the blog seventh. The guy has four other blogs, one of which (called HANG CONGRESS FOR TREASON) was updated as recently as 2019. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Education and voter trends | Result: Deleted

Education and voter trends (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Why do we have a page that is intended to be dead in the mainspace? Either move it somewhere out of the way or get rid of it. Plutocow (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Why indeed. What's the point of a wiki page that can't be edited? Spud (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Christopher (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Serves no purpose. Bongolian (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
5. The table is also borderline illegible. What am I supposed to glean from it? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Move to essayspace, to move out of the way but keep it intact.Andrew5 (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Original position fallacy | Result: Deleted

Original position fallacy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. It's difficult to parse what this is trying to say, because it's an ungrammatical stub. It seems to be trying to say something like: People X tend to advocate some change because they think they will benefit from it, but they wouldn't: a fallacy. But this isn't so much a logical fallacy as just being wrong in one premise (namely, that X would benefit from the change). Possibly it's just taken from the linked TV Tropes article. If an article doesn't describe what it purports to describe, and it doesn't make sense, it shouldn't stay. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 20:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

   Also, it seems to be self-contradictory. The first sentence seems to say that the fallacy is in thinking that one should consider things from the original position, but the article goes on to suggest that those who don't consider things from the original position are committing a fallacy. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 20:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

   Update: it was definitely taken from the TV Tropes article (there's a comment about it in the markup). 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 02:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

2. There's really no authoritative source calling this a fallacy (TV Tropes can be authoritative about some things but not about this). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes it as a thought experiment, not a fallacy.[7] Bongolian (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

   I mean, it could be merged there...Andrew5 (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

   It's OK to merge it onto the thought experiment page, but only if someone makes it coherent first. Bongolian (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

3. It's just not a "fallacy". It's some guy's suggestion about how laws should be created.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

   There is a world of difference between somebody who writes a newspaper article and one who get published by Belknap Press aka "The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press". John Rawls got published by the latter and is reliable even by the much stricter standards of wikipedia.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

   Still doesn't make it a fallacy. Does/did he claim it's a fallacy?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

   @BruceGrubb (EC) This article is not about the original position. It is about the so-called original position fallacy, which comes not out of Harvard University Press, but out of TVTropes. The article fails to make the distinction clear, because it is poorly written, and was worse at the time this AfD began; it confounds Rawls's idea (the original position) with that of the people at TVTropes (the original position fallacy). 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 17:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

   Matthew McAteer used the term "Original Position Fallacy" back on March 19, 2020 while the TVTropes article was first created Nov 23rd 2011 so the idea did not originate from that particular TVTropes article as people claim. "A person supports some kind of policy, action, or revolution because they assume they’re either A) in the group that will benefit from it, or B) not in the group that will suffer from it. When used as a literary device, this is often used to compount a character’s suffering with the knowledge that they supported the measure when they thought someone else would be hurt. Indeed, you can think of the Original Position Fallacy as the opposite of the Golden Rule."--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

   (EC) That inference is so absurd I cannot believe your post is in good faith. How, exactly, does a post on an obscure blog a decade after the creation of the TVTropes article show that the term does not originate from TVTropes? Are you supposing that Mr. McAteer could not possibly have seen the article in that time? And that the term could not have reached him through some intermediary during that time? He even uses almost exactly the same example to illustrate it, and his definition is similarly near verbatim taken from the TVTropes article. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 05:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

   Regarding the "a decade after the creation of the TVTropes article" I checked the TV tropes pages and it says the page was edited 427 times with the first edit being listed as "by Xzenu Nov 23rd 2011 at 7:05:31 AM" which unless, TVTropes is doing something totally nonstandard with its wiki ,should be the creation date ("Showing 427 edit(s) of 427"). If it was a move it should de noted as such. Don't claim bad faith because evidence that is likely precedes the TV tropes article has surfaced and you don't like that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

   @Bob M JUst because it isn't a fallacy doesn't mean it can't be merged elsewhere, like thought experiment. Andrew5 (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

   Sure. If it were completely rewritten from that standpoint and it would be fine.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

   Ok. Logic isn’t my strongpoint, however, but I will see what I can do over the weekend (I’m going to be too busy before then.) Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

4. This article fundamentally misunderstands Rawls' (rather famous) thought experiment. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
5. Per Serene’s meticulous research. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 18:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
6. -Flandres (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
7. As a Rawls fanboy this article makes me feel ill... GeeJayK (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
8. Christopher (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. I support a merge into fallacy, as I have seen some sources call it a fallacy and they're is nothing on fallacies there, though I want to make something clear: I am not against deletion as an alternative, so if it comes down to 'no consensus', feel free to treat this vote as a delete and delete it. The reason I am not opposed to deletion is because it will require a copyedit when merged, and isn't a super notable fallacy. Andrew5 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

   I have seen some sources call it a fallacy. Where did you see this? When I look it up, I get TV Tropes (where it was made up), then RW (that's us), then Conservapedia, where it is alleged to be used by "militant homosexuals", then Tropedia, which I'm guessing is something like TV Tropes. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 02:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

   It is true that TV Tropes is not a reliable source, even less so then Wikipedia (which is also not reliable.) However, even if it isn't a fallacy it could still be merged into thought experiment. Andrew5 (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

   Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice (available through Wiley) has something similar: ""The original position may be misstated in an extreme version (“insight therapy is effective with all clients”), and this extreme version is then criti- cized. the original, less extreme position should be reaffirmed." Also wikipedia has an article on Original position giving us a reliable source: John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Cambridge, Massachudsetts: Belknap Press, 2001. Based on Belknap Press's webpage it is part of Harvard University Press and that is certainly reliable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

   Your quote from Critical Think in Clinical Practice is completely irrelevant. They're not talking about Rawls's original position, i.e. the state of affairs wherein everybody is behind the veil of ignorance. They mean original position as in the position initially put forward in the context of this discussion. In particular, they mean the position "that insight therapy is useful with many (not all) clients", which is probably a lot more significant to proper clinical practice than to a theory of justice. Now, Rawls himself is certainly an important figure, and his idea of the original position has been influential, but the topic of this article is only tangentially related to his ideas. It is taken from here, a page describing an (alleged) trope in media involving attitudes and behaviors that (i) are not fallacious, (ii) occur in fictional stories, (iii) are inconsistent with the the recommendations of Rawls. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 17:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

2. I lean towards merge as this had other usage like the dead hand of tradition (The Great Doctors by Robert Silverberg ) and similar statements.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Merge to avoid losing info.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 02:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
4. Merge and expand please. I want to know more about it. N. Harmonik (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
5. Merge, but make it clear it's a thought experiment rather than a fallacy Plutocow (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
6. At the very least, merging can allow for a grammatical cleanup and for the original text to be made clearer with more citations. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 16:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• If there is no consensus between delete and merge, what do we do? No consensus defaults to keep and no one likes it. Do we merge? Delete? Wait a while for someone to break the tie? Andrew5 (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• @Bongolian I’m not sure what our policy is here. No new votes in 10 days, and delete leads over merge/redirect. Can deletion proceed as it stands?Omicron (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  There was substantial support for merging, but no one as yet has done the merge. If someone (@BruceGrubb, Harmonik, Plutocow, and TheJakeHolmesVersion) will do the merge, then the page can be deleted. Bongolian (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  But merge it into what exactly? There is also substantial support for the point of view that it's not a fallacy. So merging it into "fallacy" when the main reason for the majority delete vote was "it's not a fallacy" would seem to be absurd. Rewriting it completely and an including it in thought experiment would be Ok I would have thought.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Hippocrates Health Institute | Result: Keep

Hippocrates Health Institute (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Article is a stub for nearly 7 years, and this seems to be more of a newspaper type style of one singular death. I don't see any missional information at side of this. The fact no one has edited it in 5+ years before the template was placed probably shows no one cares about it also. Andrew5 (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

   You don't see anything missional about the organization selling detox-19, a triplet of homeopathic 'remedies' for COVID-19? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

   You didn't put it in. Insert it if you want that to count as a reason, @Serene. Andrew5 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

2. While missional I agree that this is too brief. Since it hasn't been expanded in 7 years it is way past time to delete.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

   What advantage does deleting information about a quack-den do to people who may be googling for info about said quack den? Like there's not a lot to being an alt med hole that murdered a child patient. It doesn't take ten paragraphs to explain that. You want me to take a field trip and learn who works there, take some pictures of whatever fake medicine they're selling? Why? Why expand-or-delete? They're a real business so you have to stick to provable facts to not get sued for defamation. You're not magically going to find more, and there's not any reason to have less either. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

   The notability, IMO, is borderline enough to where I would actually have nominated it on AFD on Wikipedia had I not been blocked and globally locked. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

   We only care about notability here inasmuch as it represents a distraction from the mission. This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It belongs on a page about alt med and the dangers it poses. Like rationalwiki. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Small article with sufficient information is fine. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
2. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 02:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
3. -Flandres (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
4. Cataloging small-scale dangers to patient health through pseudoscience is a better use of a page than most of what we do. I definitely stand by the use for this page. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
5. It's short but it's not a stub. U see no reason to delete it. Spud (talk)

   I assume you meant “I”. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

6. Short and to the point. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• I would like to compliment Serene for adding the COVID information. Still leaning towards deletion, but at this point it's bordering on being on mission. Andrew5 (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Just a few footnotes I've found Googling this place:
  • According to this, the institute links back to an immigrant named Ann Wigmore who helped popularize the raw foodism ideas of Maximilian Bircher-Benner in the United States. Apparently there is a "Hippocrates Diet" centered around raw food that links to her. However, the institute split from Wigmore in 1987.
  • Prior to the split, however, Wigmore was noted for various quackery. Such as promoting a "wheatgrass regime" (page 41) to supposedly cure cancer, and apparently getting sued successfully twice, once for claiming that her "energy enzyme soup" could combat AIDS, and once for claiming that her program could eliminate the need for insulin in diabetics and immunization in children. There's other fun stuff in the Wiki article.
  • Generally speaking, split aside, the institute is still best known still for advocating raw foodism and raw food "detox retreats", as its Tripadvisor reviews indicate, and as a New York Times article also notes. It is not surprising that this comes with occasional health quackery. I'm neutral about the RW article personally, but if the consensus leans towards delete, it may be better to merge with the raw foodism article instead.
  • As a final side note, the institute has certainly managed to get some strange puff pieces in various news places. Carrots as an aphrodisiac, Times of London, what the fuck? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  Their official website has stuff about a Hippocrates diet, which as far as I can tell is still about raw food. They’re also still doing stuff with wheatgrass, so it seems they haven’t strayed far from their roots. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 04:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan Anomaly | Result:AfD that is likely invalid with attempted vote rigging

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

This article was proposed for deletion before. See here for that discussion.

Delete

1. I follow eugenics stuff pretty closely and I've literally never heard of this guy. Also, the page says that Anomaly is an assistant professor at the University of San Diego, but he isn't listed anywhere on the University of San Diego's website. On his personal website he describes himself as a "former academic". He wrote an article on eugenics in an obscure bioethics journal. Why should we give attention to some random nobody? The original creator of the page has been banned from RationalWiki. I think the page should be deleted. Pangloss (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Anomaly is a nobody. deleteMiyazaki me away (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
3. Delete. PistolPete (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. The votes for delete seem suspicious as fuck, plus this is an article with a history of being put up for AfD by banned trolls. Plutocow (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
2. I've seen people using him as an actual reference on Wikipedia. He is relevant. Also, what Plutocow said. GeeJayK (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
3. See last AfD, nothing has changed since then, including the trolling it seems. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
4. LongStylus (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
5. This message paid for by the Committee to End Spurious AfDs. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
6. The person who put this up is autopatrolled, so likely isn't a sock. However, the other 5 have good points. Also, @Cosmikdebris - . Andrew5 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

   What do you mean "the other 5 have good points"? I didn't even say anything, I just put my signature. LongStylus (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

   I guess this is in a similar vein to "per all". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

   Andrew5 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

   Ah, I see. LongStylus (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

7. The fact that the page was created by that twat Oliver D. Smith is irrelevant. Spud (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
8. if this new user voting charade keeps up then we should impose some voting restrictions. I still assume the afd creator doesn't quite know the original mike Smith crap however. Motion for instant archival.🍜 --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

   This is our first troll AFD in two months and our second in nine. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Goat

1. This AFD has had terrible formatting. Andrew5 (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Pangloss (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) and Miyazaki me away (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) (only 2 edits) are likely the same person. Most of Pangloss' edits are on eugenics. They are not being honest Anomaly is not notable - he recently published a book with a mainstream publisher on eugenics which is popular in the HBD/identitarian/alt-right online communities: https://www.routledge.com/Creating-Future-People-The-Ethics-of-Genetic-Enhancement/Anomaly/p/book/9780367203122 I also doubt Pangloss's claim they have not heard of Anomaly before and it's possible Anomaly is in communication with Pangloss and got them to make this deletion request. 134.209.183.141 (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

   stfu smith --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Bruce Bartlett | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Marginally missional stub that's unlikely to be updated or expanded. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Please see Talk:Bruce Bartlett#Missionality as well. Andrew5 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
3. What exactly is here that isn't in the Wikipedia article? Also other than som snark how is this on subject?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Pretty lame. Seems like a decently rational guy. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 17:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

   I mean, to be fair to him, we do have articles on other fairly rational people. Andrew5 (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

5. Per cosmik. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Goat

Rating is 5-0; the page has been vaporized. Check diff logs. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 14:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Formatting close and doing the procedual stuff. Andrew5 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wait, @TheJakeHolmesVersion, don't we normally leave the talk page intact? I thought we didn't huff them. Andrew5 (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know about that. I will revert that. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 14:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

List of countries where Holocaust denial is legal | Result: 10-0 Delete

List of countries where Holocaust denial is legal (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. its essentially not a list of countries where holocaust denial is legal, its its a list of all countries minus the few the where it is illegal. its a ridiculous waste of space AMassiveGay (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Reminds me of those USA maps where it's "legal to kill a person for being trans", whereas in reality it just means that they didn't make the trans panic defense illegal yet (probably simply because it wasn't used or because the trans panic defense has failed to work for over a decade now). In other words; it's a somewhat weird, if oblique political setpiece that doesn't fit the site. Nuke it from orbit. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
3. -Flandres (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Not really useful. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
5. For having the Faroe Islands and not Greenland. Epic Games (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

   For the record, I did remove the Faroe Islands. Andrew5 (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

6. Purposeless, I can't imagine a time where the contents of this article would be useful armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 00:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
7. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
8. It's also completely unreferenced. Spud (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
9. Now that all the information is merged, a seperate article is unnecessary. Andrew5 (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
10. ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

This could be funspaced or (possibly) essayspaced. I don't like that's it in mainspace, but I don't think total deletion is a good idea and this is a feesible comprimise. Andrew5 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Switching vote per discussion vote. Andrew5 (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Funspace... wha. What about this is funny. And no, essayspacing tends to be for articles that have value (see Essay:Sunday school environmentalism) but don't exactly fit the site itself. This listicle is largely hogwash. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

We have voted to keep funspace articles that aren't quite funny, like RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Fun:George Soros or RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Fun:Michelle Obama's arms. Now the 2021 capital riot charges was similar to this, and was deleted in a 15-14-2 vote, which could set precedent, though. Andrew5 (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't exactly do precedent with afds... Also both of those articles are extremely funny what are you on about. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, according to Bob, funspace is mainly to have fun. But this probably work better in essayspace, because similar articles were essayspaced, albeit the 2021 capital charges one was not. It could also be merged with Holocaust denial, but I'd be sketpical of that given how that's a gold.Andrew5 (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

what exactly do think that makes this article worth keeping? what is it that you think has any worth in this article that isnt a list of all countries minus 13 or isnt already in the holocaust denial article? sure, funspace it. essayspace it. whatever you like. try justifying its existence first. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This would be similar to something like User:Andrew5/My notable storms (which btw is not complete yet). Should not have been in mainspace. Now I can't userspace it as many have worked on it, but this is something that could reasonably be an essay. Maybe not funspace. Also, the article can be re-written to write a point of view on these countries. It's almost at essayspace quality: where it belongs. Andrew5 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

i note that your answer does not answer my question. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This indicates countries where Holocaust denial is legal and illegal and that information isn’t anywhere else on RW. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

thats arse. there are 195 countries in the world. 13 of whom seem holocaust denial is illegal in some way. this is a list of those 195 minus the 13. do you not see the problem here? its complete arse. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

True but it also isn’t mentioned at all on RW. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

that kind of pedantry is easily fixed by one simple edit to holocaust denial page. justify this article. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

True, but it's a gold (The denial article), so it is risky. Andrew5 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

it isnt and its done. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, AMG, I'll flip my vote now that it's redundant. Also, I was mainly scared because for some reason, when I'm not referencing articles I crash them. Andrew5 (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Property | Result: No consensus after a month. It stays. For now.

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

Delete

1. An unsourced article for 7 years. Also, I want to point out Bob had pointed out missionality issues back in March, at Talk:Property#Mission, but said issues have not since been pointed out. Giving these issues, I propose it be deleted. Perhaps the only other thing I could see working is essayspacing it, but even that seems like slightly overkill to me. Nonetheless, if it must be kept it should be in that format. Andrew5 (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Per Andrew5, find all redlinks to this article and redirect them. Who's going to actually click on a redirect and read this article? Who needs to know what property is? Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 21:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

   This AfD has been open for nearly a month with no advancement. What's our plan for this page? It's barely been touched in the intervening time. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 17:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

   Since it's been open for a month and is 2-2, it's probably 'no consensus' which defaults to a keep. it can be renominated in a few months. Andrew5 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Bongolian (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
2. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Not necessarily objecting (the article is short and rather stubby), but there are quite a few pages that link to this one from what I can tell. -- Techpriest (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  Solution: Remove the redlinks, or convert them to Wikipedia links. Andrew5 (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• This article has improved. And I might consider keeping if it improves a bit more.Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Maulana Karenga | Result: No votes for Keep after 2 weeks. Deleted.

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

Delete

1. Stub (literally a singular paragraph) for over 14 years. He might be notable / missional, but it would require a content expansion so bad that honestly deleting it and allowing re-creation (WP:TNT) is better for the article. -- Andrew5 (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Bongolian (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Unlikely to be expanded anytime soon. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Yes, it should be deleted. And, yes, it could be recreated. And there was absolutely no need to cite Wikipedia policy to say that. Spud (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

   No one bothered to write a RationalWiki policy on it. Perhaps you could do that? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

   We don't need a policy for everything. We are not Wikipedia nor do we wish to emulate Wikipedia. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

   But then it's harder to justify it. Plus, GeeJayK has also used it. (There was another example but I decided not to use it.) Andrew5 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

   No it bloody doesn't make it harder to justify sod all. Articles have been deleted and then new articles created about the same topic here before without much drama. Now for the umpteenth time, stop citing the policies of another wiki all the frigging time. Spud (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

   I feel when ever a RW sysop says something, everyone agrees but the second a non-sysop does everyone jumps on them. Maybe it’s just an illusion, but this feels biased. Going back to USHA’s drama, now I realize he did have a point. Spud, it would be helpful if you also went out after others for doing the same. Then at least it would be consistent. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

   There's no 'bias' here, Andrew. We don't need standards for deletion or recreation. End of discussion. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 16:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

   It could be that every sysop has the exact same opinion and biases and have some vendetta against non-sysops, or.....you just have bad takes, Andrew5. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

5. This has had 14+ years to be expanded and it, at least to my eyes, isn't even on mission as there is not enough to meet "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism" criteria.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Science and Math Defeated | Result: Keep

Science and Math Defeated (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not notable enough Epic Games (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep

1. Missional. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Probably no harm to keeping it for amusement. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Notedscholar broke my kookmeter by making a Nazi analogy about the tyranny of negative numbers. Bongolian (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Keep and expand this classic study in kookology. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
5. A more detailed search proves this to be barely notable enough. Andrew5 (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

   We stole all their links ;-). [8] Bongolian (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

6. Obviously missional crank 主要行事月 (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
7. So obviously on mission that that this process is a waste of time.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Kinda split on notability. I found some search result but not a lot. however, the article is in dire need of sourcing which may contribute to a lack of notability. I'll abstain for now. Andrew5 (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• I also feel mixed about this one. Notability seems low — few clear references to it in a Google search. Nuttery is obviously high. The person behind it may have finally been defeated by Science with a steady stream of posting from 2010 to mid-2019. The person may have had one last circle around the drain before COVID hit. Bongolian (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Also feel mixed for the above reasons. No harm in keeping it I suppose, but they've not been active since 2020. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Maximized Living | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Unsourced, might not be missional, definitely not notable. The search results I get on Google are only half related. I don't think this is a necessary article to have. Andrew5 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

   The first site I get is their website, complete with an ad for their nutritional supplements. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 17:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

   For me I got a chiropractor in Farmingdale, but maybe it’s the way I set up my computer. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

2. The article has been around since 2013 but still looks like a skeleton. Bongolian (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
3. The notability is what cinches it for me. We don't need pages on every single group of quacks. Friedman (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Monet ^Ye 07:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Glenn Youngkin | Result: Deleted

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

Delete

1. Not well written, being a summary rather than covering any missional aspects, the guy is of questionable relevance at the moment, and the page is a troll magnet, being a target of no less than three recurring trolls. I think we'd be better off without this. Plutocow (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

   It's a bland article, but "troll magnet" is usually not a valid reason to delete articles since it can be reverted and protected. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

   Not gonna vote on this since it's mine, however, how many times have we said "improving the article, and when that fails, then try to delete it?" Also, those missional aspects you seem to want in the article, you haven't bothered to even put it when I said I couldn't find it. If you actually spend an hour and can't find it, then maybe it's worth deleting. He also seems to have links to authoritarianism, point #3 of our mission. We have plenty of other articles on subjects that are of the same tier of missionality.

   @LeftyGreenMario Andrew5 (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

2. Bold and brash? More like belongs in the trash.

(Profile) - (Spoke!) 15:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

1. It's really not that good. Youngkin isn't very well-known and this article is just about gubernatorial debates. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 15:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Too encyclopedic. Would support something like WP:TNT though. GeeJayK (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

   The problem for WP:TNT is that in order for it to work, there needs to be a draft already written up and able to be moved to mainspace - which is not the case here. Otherwise, it is very likely to become neglected and then not to be published. Andrew5 (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

3. Not worth keeping. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 19:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Already out of the spotlight. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 19:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

   He might not be "breaking news" the way he normally was, but a Google search of "Glenn Youngkin" shows multiple sources in the last few days, and this one from 13 hours ago also helps contribute to his missionality. I'll add it. Andrew5 (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

5. I personally don't think this article has enough relevancy to remain up nor do I think the article itself is very missional. RationalHindu (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
6. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
7. Give it time. He might be important later, but later is, well...later.-Flandres (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

   I'd argue he's relevant today - this shows quite a few sources to prove he's still in the news, and I have found new sources to show his position on climate change. I also disagree with the sentiment that he has to be making national headlights in order to be relevant enough, plenty of polticians with articles do not have that. I will also cut down on the gubeneternal debate fanfluff and see if it's still an acceptable size. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep

1. VERY relevant currently. Citations are decent, far too good to justify deletion.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 01:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Bongolian (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
3. sorry lgm Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 03:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

   That image is free for anyone else to use. :) --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

4. Unsure of missionality. We have too many pages on one-note politicians who had their limelight in the news for 5 minutes. As of now however I don't see a reason to take a hacksaw to this page yet. Feel like this judgement is best deferred to me ~6 months from now on. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

   I would say 6 at a minimum, and lean towards 7 if not even more. The reason why is because sometimes, he could become missional in the summer, which can "develop" by April or May but not be there yet. As such, I would say 6 months is the least we can wait. Andrew5 (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

5. Inclined to keep for now. We don't know how his governance style yet. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Goat

1. Let's give it a few more months and see if anyone still gives a shit about Virginia politics and their impact (if any) on the national scene. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

   My prediction is that it might. We have to see, for one, how it would be used in campaigning for the 2022 midterms, and what Youngkin does in Virginia. But he doesn't even take office for a month and a half. (Coincidentally this is the month and a half around the winter solstice - daylight will be this level again on that date, just later in the day!) - so it is unfair to make this determination now. If proven to be not missional, that call is probably best left to June, so around 6-7 months away. The problem is users get impatient to take down articles sometimes (this isn't the first aggressive AFD I've seen from this user). Then again, no amount of content can overcome a lack of missionality, hence I might see the need to AFD this in June, or sometime later. Andrew5 (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

2. I want to add in that I cut down on some of the fluff, so it's smaller but is more tightly composed to the more missional aspects and doesn't veer off into off-mission territory. Andrew5 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)