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

December 2023[edit]

Louis Althusser | Result: Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

#A notable philosopher with some cranky ideas for sure, but writing an on-mission page on him might not be worth it considering many of more dubious ideas (authoritarian apologia/pseudoscience/uncritical acceptance of psychoanalysis) are already covered on various other pages, such as Jacques Lacan for example FirmlyGraspIt (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

More or less agreed with above. I'm a bit more sympathetic to Althusser's work writ large thatn FirmlyGraspIt, but that which we would want to criticize is pretty academic issues that would require a lot of work to make use of for the average reader. There are also questions about whether he's even a relevant topic to most people browsing this wiki; wingnuts pretty much never target Althusser anymore, and contemporary moonbats take less interest in him than other similar philosophers, IME. Monochroma (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

What even is this argument? "Other pages cover similar topics, so why even have a page since it's redundant"? Then retool pieces of that info from those pages onto this one, and add links to those pages where they can fit. People are going to land on different pages depending on search queries, they aren't scanning the entire wiki. The Lacan page doesn't mention Althusser at all. "It would be a lot of work to get the page in good shape" — better close the whole wiki then. Chillpilled (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not very good, but also not thaaat bad and Althusser is indeed missional. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 10:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Improve, don't delete. If the quality is that bad, move it to draft space. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleting articles is not a positive act. If they are bad it's better to improve them. (And it's not necessary to move articles to draftspace before improving them - it's a wiki - just improve them) Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep, improve. There are more articles being deleted, than there are being created.. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

#The given rationale is a very weak argument. Just because the same crankery is covered elsewhere doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have an article on one of the specific people promoting it. Just do some more research, add some more references and perhaps a few direct quotations too. And a bit of expansion too. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularR asoning^{See what I've been messing around with} 17:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

We've deleted articles for less. That said, the general quality of articles covering the humanities (and the social sciences) here tend to be... lacking. Do we really want such poor articles to stay in mainspace when they could just as easily be redirected to draftspace? Carthage (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Changed my mind, per Carthage. This, along with several other sub-par humanities-related articles, should be moved to draft space and have a sweeping topic-improvement campaign advertised on the Saloon Bar to recruit more editors to help these articles properly earn their place in the mainspace. --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularR asoning^{See what I've been messing around with} 18:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't RationalWiki also have a dedicated to-do list? Luigifan18 (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The to-do list. The place where when you're too lazy to do the work you try to enlist others to do it for you. You want anything to get done you have to do it yourself. Carthage (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Move to draft-space. Carthage (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I’m now inclined to move this to the draft space as well but I will probably not be able to really work on the article until I’m able to pick up my copy of ‘’For Marx’’ and my old notes on it from my folks’ place (which will be around Christmas time). And to assuage my concerns, no it will not just be a hit piece any criticism will be defended by a thorough reconstruction of his arguments. FirmlyGraspIt (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Relevancy has been used as a criterion for deletion before. So it has precedent. Carthage (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
A couple of ideas: 1 Althusser mudering his wife is only tangentially missional (this was probably a mistake). It should be mentioned since domestic violence is of course missional, but I'd rather see an article that challenge his more authoritarian ideasm (while I don't know if Althusser was a tankie, they love him, so there is probably something wrong with him). That being said, the article doesn't need to be a hit-piece, and his Reading Capital is, as far as I'm aware, very respected between Marxists, even those that hate Althusser. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Althusser was a harsh critic of Soviet-style "communism," so I'd like to see which tankies "love" him. Carthage (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I think Althusser liked Lenin, not Stalin[1] and was apparently a ML himself[2]. Though, granted, he was talking about Lenin the thinker, not the politician, and does not even mention the USSR in his essay. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
How can I get around the paywall to read The NY Times article? In general, ML means Stalinist. In reading Althusser I have focused more on his philosophy of science so that is what is most fresh to my mind. I did read his more political/historical essays a few years ago and got the sense that they were vague enough as to be open to interpretation as authoritarian apologia and that’s how tankies usually adopt his philosophy (whether this was purposeful or not on his part is a different question that’s harder to give a well-researched answer to). FirmlyGraspIt (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I use archive.today to get around paywalls. I'm not feeding bloated corporations my money. It's predatory and gatekeeps the very poor from accessing information. Carthage (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Carthage. Also I’m new to editing here so I was not sure what a good reason to delete an article would be. I also agree that Althusser murdering his wife has basically nothing to do with his philosophy. I can agree that the article doesn’t need to be a hit-piece but his major ideas (at least in the form he presented them) are all basically pseudoscience in the sense that they all fall out of things he takes as given a priori or inferences from sentences which make sense only because he chose to define a word in a certain way. What I mean to point out is that he leaves almost no mechanism for incoming empirical data to revise his core assumptions. Even if one were to argue that ‘ISA’ is a purely descriptive and not predictive theory, descriptive theories still need to aim at a minimum of a priori assumptions and replace them with ones which better conform to new data tl;dr Althusser fits the theory to the data using theoretical frameworks which were outdated even in his own day.FirmlyGraspIt (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Thinking about changing my vote. I'm usually against send problematic articles to rot on the draft space, since they usually spend an eternity there, but we seem to have motivated user to edit it. @FirmlyGraspIt of course, you're free to edit whatever you want, but do you still intend to go overhal this article? GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Right, but let's try not to make it a hit piece with no actual commentary? That was what started this row in the first place. And @Monochroma also seems to be interested in improving this article. Carthage (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
A brief thing: ML does not "mean Stalinist in general". Often? Certainly. But the distinction matters, especially if we're actually talking about communist theory.

Anyway, I'd be open to helping but again I am far from an expert on Althusser (I'm not really an expert in any subject frankly) and more or less only have a passing familiarity with some of his theories. Again, the original state of this page was extremely dire when I first encountered it. FirmlyGraspIt seems to be operating with a specific understanding and specific thesis regarding issues with his theories, and that should be appropriate for this wiki. Again, my main request besides what has been stated (specific, clear critique, cursory explanations of ideas) is that the distinction between fact and critique be maintained; again, just a preference.

However, I'm still ultimately in favor of deletion. We could get it to a good state, but I just don't this subject is particularly relevant to most users or readers of this site, nor to RW's mission, and while there might be incisive critique of Althusser's "epistemological break", it still seems pretty far outside the rhetorical sphere of most stuff on this wiki. Monochroma (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Which is definitely a valid argument, but the scope of missionality has expanded over the years. Carthage (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If the reason given for deletion had been "not missional" I might well have voted for deletion. There really doesn't seem to anything obviously relevant.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

SodaHead.com | Result: Deleted[edit]

SodaHead.com – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This obscure website and all the related sites referenced in the article have gone to the great internet bit bucket. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Stub, questionable notability for RW (content reeks of the period where we thought we could document all crank sites) and the links are dead. Little to preserve, best to delete it. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah this is garbage. Carthage (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Bongolian (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this was a crank site, just a site which provided some houseroom to cranks. As ever, I have looked at the WP edition of this page and it's superior to ours in every way so there's zero reason for keeping this little outdated stub. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Essay:Good and Hawt! | Result: Cremated[edit]

Essay:Good and Hawt! – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The analogous essay "Evil but hawt" was deleted and this has similar problems. It's really creepy and immature 50.29.218.72 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
This site isn't the place for a "sexiest ladies" list… Luigifan18 (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
We're more grown up than this Ioe bidome (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
This page is an artifact from an earlier time and the time has passed to retain pages like this. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Fucking creepy. Carthage (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Jevons paradox | Result: Noclipped out of reality and into the backrooms[edit]

Jevons paradox – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

There are many problems with this stub. First, it does not have sources at all. Second, most, if not all of the content I could find about this subject, contradicts the so-called "paradox". Apparently, people don't even know how to measure it.[3], it's based purely on theoretical arguments and they are themselves quite weak.[4] The best empirical test I could find also suggests that the evidence is pretty much weak[5].Third, the article extrapolates Jevons argument (which is about energy) to pretty much everything else, without, again, give any source to back such claims. It's clearly a fringe idea, and I don't think we need an article on it, Wikipedia already has one.GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC) GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Per GeeJayK above. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularR asoning^{My experiments} 19:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
This article is clearly shit, although I have given several examples that demonstrate its continued usage in the literature (which raises questions of how meaningfully we can demarcate what is "fringe" or not). As the article currently stands it's shit, so on a purely functional ground I'm voting for deletion. Carthage (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

If the evidence supports that this paradox isn't real, my suggestion would be rewriting it to make it clear that the subject is pseudoscientific, rather than deleting it outright. Refuting pseudoscience is a big part of RationalWiki's mission, after all. Luigifan18 (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not 'pseudoscientific' - it's simply a variation of supply/demand curves. That if a resource becomes 'cheaper' [by mile of locomotion, to cite the classic example] the total consumption of that resource may end up higher than before because that resource becomes much more attractive to use [for example, people changing from other methods of travel]. The debate in economics is not whether it exists or not, but how strong the effect can be and how often is it observed.

Yet there is the little point that the stub isn't that good; like many Econ pages on RW, it needs someone who has some knowledge/interest in this subject to re-do it. I've taken a look at the WP version on this and it's kinda too dense for a layperson to get. Therefore, I argue firmly that this page should not be deleted but left for the day someone comes along, thinks 'I can do better' and does so. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I want to know how exactly it's "fringe" given that fact that it clearly has been used in the literature (with evidently measurable results, I already linked a few). And remember, "fringe" does not impart any data about the truth value of a statement. If it's "fringe" for economics, is it fringe for sociohydrology? Carthage (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If I had the time and mental bandwidth, I would merge Jevons into a wider 'supply and demand' article, which would also cover stuff like 'Veblen goods' and 'Giffen good'. All three are examples where the 'conventional wisdom' are incorrect. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Wikipedia highlights several cases where the Jevons paradox has been used in academia, including in sociohydrology with what's called the "reservoir effect". To quote the abstract of the Nature Sustainability study:

The expansion of reservoirs to cope with droughts and water shortages is hotly debated in many places around the world. We argue that there are two counterintuitive dynamics that should be considered in this debate: supply–demand cycles and reservoir effects. Supply–demand cycles describe instances where increasing water supply enables higher water demand, which can quickly offset the initial benefits of reservoirs. Reservoir effects refer to cases where over-reliance on reservoirs increases vulnerability, and therefore increases the potential damage caused by droughts. Here we illustrate these counterintuitive dynamics with global and local examples, and discuss policy and research implications.

- [6]

Now I'm inclined to delete the article as it currently stands for the reasons GJK describes, but it clearly has at least some descriptive value. Another study used Jevons' paradox in a similar fashion, although its wording is pretty cautious:

Improving the efficiency of water use is usually presented as an opportunity for large water savings, particularly in the agricultural sector. Warnings that this may not translate into reduced consumption is sometimes associated with the rebound effect or Jevons paradox, an appealing concept that can be used to analyse and prevent unde ired consequences in the rush for efficiency gains. This article, based on the energy sector, shows that the concept helps to identify possible unintended consequences of increasing efficiency and shows how efficiency gains are shared in society. However, it might be conceptually misleading when applied to water since it reinforces a myth on the consideration of water savings and efficiency, and may be also too restrictive. The recent modernisation of irrigation practices in Spain highlights that the rebound effect is only one of many possible consequences of efficiency improvements.

- [7]

So I'm not sure if this can be called pseudoscientific. Carthage (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's pseudoscientific either, just that it's a very theoretical argument that is very hard to measure, so has very little place here. I don't think we should have articles that are so speculative. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you were talking about Luigi, I guess. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Mostly. When most people read "fringe" they're gonna think "pseudoscience." Also, given the fact that it's been used as a tool in the literature recently (in sociology and water management, although Wikipedia also gives other use examples) I'm not sure how "fringe" it really is. Either way the article as it currently stands is shit.

Also, this wiki allows for original research. (Then again if it's present in the literature it's not really "original" as Wikipedia defines it.) Are you advocating for a policy shift?

Homo economicus by your standard presented here is "mostly theoretical," and also incredibly questionable as a philosophical standard and methodological underpinning. Now I know that mainstream economics as a whole has moved on from a strict emphasis on Homo economicus, but it is still arguably relevant as an ideological underpinning for a whole bunch of shit ideologies (and the continued emphasis on "rationality" has also met sustained criticism from a number of fronts). Is your argument better framed as one of "relevance" then? Jevons' paradox is clearly being employed as an analytical tool in recent literature. Carthage (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Trees cause pollution | Result: Grafted[edit]

Trees cause pollution – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

This doesn't really need its own article, it's a rather specific claim and the article is unlikely to ever rise beyond stub status. It could be merged with the tree article though. Plutocow (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
We might do with a broader article on the crisis in modern forestry, though. Carthage (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Merge into tree seems to be the best thing to do with it. Spud (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Merge into tree and give it a bullet point as an example of whataboutism? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Cop Block | Result: Beaten with a truncheon[edit]

Cop Block – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Whatever you think about police abolitionism and anti-police activism, as it currently stands this article is absolute dogshit. It's a stub with no depth of content, only two citations, reeks of editorialization, and runs the risk of being called a strawman, for good reason. I support a hasty delete. Carthage (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty crappy, and the site is basically dead. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Hopelessly tiny stub; site has become irrelevant now and not worth the effort. As others have said, this site, though missional, is long dead. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularR asoning^{See what I've been messing around with} 20:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, put my vote in the wrong spot.-Flandres (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Bongolian (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
WP version is more authorative and covers everything the RW stub does and more. I say delete our version until if/when someone actually has something more to say about CopBlock that WP refuses to cover [of which we can then re-create the page]. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Stub isn't a great reason to delete unless maybe if it was a really stubby stub. The page isn't a straw man at all, other than maybe the "Bitcoin = libertarian" thing. A "user upload system for police brutality complaints" sure sounds like it could be prone to the sort of hoaxes that VAERS is. Chillpilled (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
There are only two citations. And there's no real analysis of complaints issued on the site. "Provocative articles" doesn't really tell me why the content is so objectionable. For example Wikipedia lists at least two controversies regarding alleged privacy violations by the site (although one can also argue that documenting police brutality to ensure public accountability is of more interest to the public than any "privacy" that allows abuses to continue unchecked) neither of which are covered on this page. There is also the issue of the editorialization. Carthage (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
It seems like whoever wrote it may have been sympathetic to some of their aims. Keep in mind RW doesn't only have pages on objectionable people or websites but, also people or websites who themselves criticize the objectionable. Which police brutality certainly falls under. But we may also document their shortcomings where they're found, which this page doesn't really elaborate on much, true, but that's not necessarily reason to delete it, moreso to expand it if desired. Chillpilled (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Fair, but we've deleted articles for less (Maoist Rebel News comes to mind here). Put it in draftspace? Make it a work in progress? I don't think the article as is is mainspace-worthy, at the very least, but you raise some valid points. I also have to question the notability of this site. Is anyone citing Cop Block in 2023? Carthage (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The site does look pretty slow now, which could've been one of the better reasons for deleting the page, in that many people would see it as a reason to. Personally though I favor retention of articles that were notable at a time, as you never know when they might become relevant to the timeline of some other article (aside from more general "historical value"). Apparently they were notable enough to retain a Wikipedia article, which is a higher bar than RW tends to set. I think putting it in draftspace would just be a less-formal death sentence absent anyone vouching that they'd expand it there. Maoist Rebel News is one I would've wanted to retain if I had been at the vote, since I know how kind of "iconic" he is/was in the online Maoist Third-Worldist space regardless of his follower count, in part for his eccentricities and controversies, although this is a little off-topic. Chillpilled (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I could perhaps see a more general article about anti-police sentiment being written. Anti-police sentiment is now a lot more mainstream in 2023 than it was in 2011. Of course, that's also contingent on which community we're talking about. Anti-police sentiment definitely wasn't fringe in poor black communities in 2011. Our articles generally reflect a sort of critical approach to law enforcement too, which is reflective of that shift in sentiment (although the community as a whole tends to take a more skeptical stance towards outright abolitionism as opposed to reformism, although I don't think it's seen as equivalent to advocating for the gold standard anymore). There is also a lot of bullshit spread about, say, "defund the police" (like that cities that saw a legislative push to defund the police caused a correlated rise in crime, that's questionable to say the least, and the "evidence" cited in support is largely anecdotal. There is also problems with the methods used, which are obviously subject to bias and the reports released tend to be incomplete. A study done in 2019 showed that between 2010 to 2015 declining arrest rates had no measurable effects on homicide rates: ([8]). However, the same study showed that "targeted policing" has a measurable effect on crime prevention. It has also been found that the 2020-2021 rise in homicide rates have a clear correlation with the effects of the pandemic: ([9]) Others deliberately conflate defunding efforts with abolitionism (defunding would merely see a transfer of funds that go to overmilitarized police departments to other city service agencies that deal with, say, social work and social security that can be just as crucial to preventing crime as policing). However, this article itself I'm not sure we need. Maybe a section about how decentralized user reporting, which while crucial to covering things that would otherwise go unreported, can also lend itself to hoaxes? Carthage (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
This site seems to be moribund now with only 1 post in 2023 so far, but people have been archiving this site quite a bit over the years,[10] and in 2017 for example there were quite a lot of posts on the site.[11] Bongolian (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
If it's a stub but on mission-then the solution is improve - not delete.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree with the historical value argument. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

November 2023[edit]

Collectivism | Result: Assimilated. Resistance is futile[edit]

Collectivism – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This article is poorly sourced, largely lacking in-depth content, is a piss-poor explanation of collectivism (it's been argued, for example, that capitalism is collectivist as capitalism is driven through collective labor producing for capital (notice how the unemployed are stigmatized for "not being productive") even if one disagrees with this argument, it merits inclusion), this article doesn't include analysis of why socialism castigates the bourgeoisie, or why secular humanists castigate fundamentalists et cetera. This article definitely merits inclusion into mainspace because it is a fundamental piece of political science, but as it stands right now it's hot garbage. Carthage (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The examples list is just... terrible. Also, why is the communism template in the article? GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that too. I included the argument about capitalism being collectivist as a response to that. Carthage (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I mean it is a really shoddy stub of an article, but on a topic which I think needs to be on RW. So no nuking, improvement instead [I mean, wouldn't be hard, would it?]. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Not too good, and its past versions indicate it's never been good. Nuke it. Redirect to political spectrum to pick up the slack for all the articles that link to it. Collectivism is a missional political term and if someone wants to make a new version of the page later that door would be open. Chillpilled (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
As per Chillpilled. Bongolian (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Make a new draft instead? It feels like a stub and I think this one could be bigger and better written. It's as if someone just tried to make an article, but put several things out of order aswell. Especially with the quotes which are always on top from other articles I've seen. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to political spectrum, and add content from this article into there. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Redirecting to political spectrum would be awkward so long as the page doesn't say anything about collectivism. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 14:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I just don't know where else to redirect. One of the popular political compasses uses a collectivist/individualist axis, so. Chillpilled (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Extremism | Result: Suppressed with overwhelming force[edit]

Category:Extremism – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This word is so vague a descriptor that it tells you more about what the people labeling a movement or ideology "extremist" think than the actual movement. We already deleted the "political insanity" and related categories. I recommend deleting this one too. To give an example of this: anarcho-pacifism. Anarchopacifism is obviously anarchist, so it rejects hierarchies. It also abhors violence. Do we classify anarchopacifism as extremist? What about Salafism? Quite a few Salafist movements are quietist, they disavow violence and politics entirely. Are these quietist Salafist movements extremist? How do we even measure something as extremist? According to a Western view Salafism is extremist, but it's the norm in certain areas of the Muslim world. Carthage (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Basically a return of political insanity. The category isn't even super useful besides, containing no pages and only four subcategories, only two of which really apply (I believe there's a difference between simply being far-left/right and extreme left/right). Plutocow (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Bongolian (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

This category is different from 'political insanity' whose reference point is ambiguous. The 'Extremism' category should only be used in a few categories or articles that are universally considered extremism, such as far-right politics, far-left politics, and Islamic extremism. It is not used simply for racist or radical politicians or groups. For example, this category should not be used simply because a particular group is racist, homophobic, or radical. There is no problem if you set a reference point for the category to be used. In particular, we should not use the 'Extremism' category in articles involving living people. Umaru16 (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Suggest that it might be better as an article, not a category - as pointed out above, it's currently more an anti-category than anything else [anything not within the Overton Window is normally deemed 'extremist', though is often used as a snarl-word by governments too etc]. Perhaps start by using the bit out of 'political spectrum' as a stub and links to the various types [also suggest Hard Green, reactionary and Dominionism for entries/links. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I know that you deleted your response in the "keep" section, but I do think it's worth pointing out that what's considered "extremist" is historically contingent on a very specific set of culture-specific (in this case, Western) conditions. We consider Salafism to be "extremist," but it is the mainstay in certain parts of the Muslim world. Likewise libertarian socialism is the mainstay in the Zapatista autonomous communities. Anti-Putinist resistance in Russia is considered "extremist" by the Russian political establishment. "Extremism" is a very relative term, at best. And yes, many mainstays of our society today were at one point considered "extremist." Extremism is not a description of the truth value of the claims advocated by so-called "extremists," it's a value judgement. Carthage (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Mark Begich | Result: Consigned to obscurity[edit]

Mark Begich – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This article is a tiny stub with no real attempts at improvement within the last fifteen years. Plus, the guy was never really that relevant in the first place. Plutocow (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Why does this thing exist? Carthage (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, name one thing Begich did as senator. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Six years in the Senate, does not appear to be a particularly interesting guy (unlike Mike Gravel), low effort article, did not know he existed before today. Next! Chillpilled (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fractal wrongness | Result: Keep[edit]

Fractal wrongness – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

I expect this Afd to fail really hard. Fractal wrongness is, after all, a funny page. But the more I read this page, the more I'm convinced that there is no formal definition of "fractal wrongness" rather than "hey, we really disagree with this person". In the end, it has the same problems of the wingnuttert/moonbattery pages that we deleted not long ago: it's just a subjective insult, not a real thing. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC) GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
While it's a fun idea, I'm inclined to agree with Gee that the concept can't really be cashed out cohesively. I think the failure to develop a strong list of examples in itself suggests that the concept is too vague to be usefully applied, and the "turducken of bullshit", as described, doesn't strike me as compelling. Citing a bullshitter citing a bullshitter isn't meaningfully different from just citing the original bullshitter directly; the cited statement is just as wrong either way. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 02:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

The examples could be culled, as some seem to be just "wrong", not fractally wrong. Fractal wrongness is a real thing that occurs in conspiracy theories, as noted by Mike Rothschild's "turducken of bullshit". Bongolian (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I have a soft spot for this one. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 02:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Can be redeemed. Look to older versions of the page for inspiration. Because of the trouble in maintaining the examples list, it might be worth either removing it or better yet slimming it down to the most obvious-on-face crazies. David Icke, Scientologists, TimeCube, sovereign citizens, that sort of thing. Though people are always going to come along trying to coat-rack it (a 2015 version of the page listed Keynesian economics as an example — lol). But at minimum: I say it's a valid concept. Chillpilled (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
And I will add, fractal wrongness is something that pops up in forums and social media all the time and example I am currently addressing (UTC 02:46:35 Friday, October 27, 2023) on Facebook "The order of dates of evolution are very self-contradictory... Some of the oldest tools took more than a space of 100,000 years for man to use them. If it took this long for simple tools to be created by modern man, then why did it take 168 years to make the first touchscreen phones..." The post continues, but it is another example of very fundamental flaws resting on severe misunderstandings of basic concepts, such that the whole thesis is unsalvageable. "Wrong at every scale of resolution" is exactly the case in some instances. ^{— Unsigned, by: 172.221.145.72 / talk}
Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Daemonspudguy (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

My vote is to redirect this to either funspace or essay space. I think that Serene and GJK are in the right of things, and we have better articles on this subject anyway (our article on bullshit, for instance). However, I'm not really in favor of a hard delete either, since fractal wrongness can be argued to occur (QAnon, for instance), but the inherent vagueness of the concept makes it pretty weak as an analytical tool. Carthage (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I culled some of the shit from the list previously. I think both points are valid, but I'm leaning slightly towards "keep" for the reasons Bongolian laid out. The list also suffers from a lack of citations, which should be fixed. Inclusion of a random element of music theory was especially egregious. etc etc etc. Carthage (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Abstain. Sort of on the border of warrenting deletion or not. Anyway, carry on as if I don't exist because I retired nearly a year ago and haven't edited in exactly five months. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

October 2023[edit]

RageAfterStorm | Result: No consenus after 10 days[edit]

Delete[edit]

Nobody far-right commentator who disappeared in 2017 and this article has no historical value to rationalwiki A somebody. (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Obscure little shit who apparently is only remembered in Internet stinkholes like white supremacist websites and 8chan. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Which would make it all the more important to cover her. Missionality, not notability. Carthage (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Complete nobody, can’t be bothered to care. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 18:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 18:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
She only had 8000 Twitter followers before deletion.[12] Bongolian (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
A far-right nobody that had no real impact. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
←§ Reichtangle (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Oh come on. She had like 100,000 subscribers at the time of her self-deletion, and this article clearly has "historical value". Archiving this is important, and it's not like there's gonna be another source to easily find this information at other than RationalWiki. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
far-right Political commentators are a dime a dozen, you need an article on every fucking one, especially a nobody that disappeared in 2017. A somebody. (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I really am okay with having articles on a wide range of far-right figures, yeah. I don't see why there should be a limit on the amount of articles to have and I simply think she's missional. If someone wants to look up information about her, then it's good that this resource exists (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Who would want to look up a B-tier version of Faith Goldy and Lauren Southern? A somebody. (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Even if you can't understand that, I don't really think that's justification to not have this information archived and easily findable (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, why should we document this poor excuse for a human being? A somebody. (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I think my original post answered that? (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
What Natsuki said. Also the difference between 97k and 100k is so miniscule that anyone who argues that it falls below the cut-off would, to me at least, be pointless pedantry. It's more the spirit of the law than the letter. If someone had 99,999 subscribers that also technically falls under the cut-off, but the distinction is so miniscule as to be practically meaningless. Carthage (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't "care" about this individual either. But we document a lot of nutcases because they are nutcases (and in many cases I am sure they would actually be delighted if their articles were deleted.) But in this case there might be some historic interest to the net; and if the information is not here then - where? Furthermore nothing is lost by keeping this.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Per above, we shouldn't delete things just because they become irrelevant, keeping things of historical interest is perfectly fine. Plutocow (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
But surely part of what's under dispute is whether there is anything of historical interest here. "X is a bigot who used to have a YouTube channel and Twitter account. [A collection of tweets]." I don't see what about this is at all interesting. What came of it? What difference did it make? Why did it matter, if it did at all? Frankly, it's not clear to me that the article in its current state is really even missional. No novel crank ideas are being documented here, the article isn't analyzing or refuting anything, it isn't even really offering any critique, just listing tweets. The article's tone is negative, but it's merely presupposing that what's being said is wrong; it's left to other articles on the site to explain why. Maybe nothing is lost, per se, by keeping it, but the same could be said about the text of the Virginia Personhood Bill, or Gareth Young, or fun:time wasting websites, all of which were found lacking. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
You can find information on the Virginia Personhood Bill and Gareth Young elsewhere. Can you pinpoint similar repositories of information about RageAfterStorm that's not named "RationalWiki"? As cosmik said, this person is still of interest to Neo-Nazis. This article itself could still be a valuable piece of information for anyone who comes across mentions of RAS. Carthage (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
if you somehow got a hold of the average internet neo nazi and asked them about RageAfterStorm, they would probably be confused and have no idea who the fuck you are talking about. A somebody. (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
At a glance, I can find no other site mentioning her after 2018 except a single Reddit post, about a dozen archived copies of our page, and what is possibly an archived collection of her YouTube videos. From 2018, I find what appears to be a Nazi’s blog speculating that she’s secretly Jewish. Perhaps I’m simply not sufficiently well-acquainted with the Neo-Nazi web, but I see little to suggest that they are in fact interested in her. I’m also still not sure why the information we have would be valuable. If I come across a Neo-Nazi speculating that she’s Jewish, shall I use this page to refute them? All this article tells me is a bit about what she’s tweeted; the only claims about her that I could really address on the basis of it would be claims about the highlighted tweets. If I wanted to refute her ideology, I’d do much better to look elsewhere on the site. Also, it’s worth pointing out that for the same amount of effort, I can find even less information about Gareth Young, no surprise given that his blog went down over a decade ago and there are other people with that name. I don’t take that to be an indication that we were mistaken in deleting his article. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 02:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Lean towards preserving. Here's the thing: she wasn't just some dime a dozen YouTube pundit. I remember there was some huge drama that rocketed around the alt right/anti-SJW/anti-anti-SJW YouTube sphere before/after she left the Internet (I think Kraut & Tea was involved somehow?). The article needs to be developed to discuss that happening rather than being a wall of quotes, though. The wider historical significance here is the background e-contexts that contributed to events like the Unite the Right rally in 2017 (which actually occurred only the next month after she deleted her channel, not saying there's any direct link but to give you a chronological idea). The rise of that iteration of the alt-right was largely supported by that constellation of Internet communities, including YouTubers. Chillpilled (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I think she should be preserved. While yes, she said horrible things, and the article is a bit bare bones, it helps us understand and give some context to the lead-up of events and stooges that we see today, like with Matt Walsh & Jordan Peterson. Her ironic fascism is still employed today and her talking points are still laundered. It's important to know the sources of talking points, and I think that she's a bit too notable to forget. -Space ^{— Unsigned, by: Spacegreninja / talk / contribs}

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Please learn how to format your AfDs properly. Carthage (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I am literally only following the instructions I was given. A somebody. (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I have cleaned it up. You did something wrong. Bongolian (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Republican Faith (blog) | Result: As dead as the blog itself[edit]

Republican Faith (blog) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Just yet another dead, obscure, irrelevant conservative blog. We don't need these pages GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
A dead conservative blog with no historical value to rationalwiki. Yep! Another incinerator classic. A somebody. (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
What they said. And not even any of the links to the Internet Archive work, leaving no proof that the long dead blog ever even existed. Spud (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Wow. The edit history on this one goes back to 2007. They probably weren't that relevant or notable even then. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Carthage (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Utterly irrelevant 123goaway (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Bi/pan lesbian exclusionism | Result: Word re-re-defined[edit]

Bi/pan lesbian exclusionism – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Lesbians can not be bisexual but they can be Biromantic however they are not Bisexual stop redefining words. Aethieizt (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini has considered this article for deletion in talk page because most of inks are from social media and that nobody talks about it in real life −Aethieizt (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
We cover the broad expanse of crank ideas. I highly doubt many people are talking about Clown World. We cover it because of missionality, not notability. The author on the talk page posts links to TERFs admitting that similar rhetoric started their journeys down the terf rabbit hole. Rhetoric matters, even online rhetoric. Carthage (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, still not a fan. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
←§ Reichtangle (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Bearly (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Being a bisexual lesbian like being a Vegan carnivore 123goaway (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
And people still don't see how lesbian as a term was redefined by radfems in the 70s. This is a kneejerk response. We've already given our reasoning. "Being a bisexual lesbian like being a Vegan carnivore" is not a valid rebuttal, it's an assertion. Carthage (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

"Stop redefining words." Lesbian is more of an.... identity, perhaps? There's already a word for the sexual orientation: homosexuality. Words ultimately have contextual meaning. And besides, I think the article does a good job of defining why it matters:
Bi/pan lesbian exclusionism is another pointless, counter-productive wedge issue meant to undermine queer solidarity and cause infighting to distract from actual bigotry, be it prejudice against bisexuals and pansexuals, transphobia, and enbyphobia within the community or from homophobes outside trying to trample on LGBT rights. Worse, it can serve as a dogwhistle and a jump-off point for normalizing more extreme exclusionist views to younger, impressionable members of the queer community. Opponents to this kind of bullying have coined the acronyms "BLERF" and "PLERF" to describe people who subscribe to these views, both of which fittingly read kind of like the sound of someone retching.

As for redefining the label "lesbian":
Following that logic, many political lesbians aggressively pushed to make the word "lesbian" a purely monosexual term, meaning only (cisgender) women who are attracted to (cisgender) women.[3] Aside from the obvious transphobia (which political lesbianism is often a breeding ground for) and erasure of non-binary lesbians, this push alienated many bisexual women and non-binary folks who had often casually self-described or were perceived as lesbian up until that point.

And:
Even putting aside the aforementioned push by political lesbians to make the term "lesbian" exclusively monosexual and the bigotry associated with it, for most of the history of the English language lesbian simply meant a woman who experiences attraction to other women. The word is recorded being used in such a way as early as 1732 (to describe a bisexual woman no less).[13] At no point until the 1970s is there specific emphasis or regard to whether or not lesbians can be attracted to people of other genders.[14] This kind of selective prescriptivism very closely resembles TERF arguments regarding the sex vs gender dichotomy.

I think this article conclusively demonstrates that Atheeizt's main justification for this is without merit. Carthage (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Although it's characterized as being a purely social media phenomenon, the page references the pre-Internet history of the terminology several times. The efforts of political-lesbians last century to turn "lesbian" into a political identity to the total exclusion of attraction to men was interesting. I get that this really challenges the currently popular definition of "lesbian", but that just goes to show that political-lesbians succeeded in defining the term (and in some ways the identity altogether), especially in the public consciousness, for their own purposes. I still don't even agree with using terms like "bisexual lesbian" because it's not useful language... but I don't need to. The page could perhaps include more charity to counter-arguments. I had an initial concern for missionality, but political-lesbianism is certainly a kind of crank idea, and this covers an aspect of it. Chillpilled (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Although it could probably be streamlined and merged with something else, I oppose outright deletion. Plutocow (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
let's mark this significantly problematic ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
As the original author of this article who spent weeks working on it in my spare time, no, absolutely not. I initially kept it in a notepad document before I even made a draft because I wanted to ensure it was fleshed out enough. I was genuinely afraid of provoking the exact kind of dismissive, knee-jerk reactions that I've seen elsewhere regarding this topic. I put it out there with the hope it would provide sone kind of reasonable pushback against this sort of divisive, unproductive discourse and rhetoric. I find it very heartening to know that the work I put in is appreciated in some capacity, so thank you. I'd have no issue with it being merged into another article, but the initial reasoning behind this deletion request definitely comes off like someone made up their mind before even reading the contents of the article. Mahboison (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
It's always obnoxious to see people refuse to actually fucking review the content before making a comment on it. Plus for worse or for better rhetoric has an actual impact on meatspace events. QAnon started out on 4chan. Inceldom started out on Reddit. Carthage (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
As per above. A somebody. (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep or merge. I can attest to knowing women who identify as lesbian (basically for sociopolitical reasons) while having engaged in homosexual and heterosexual sex at various times. Bongolian (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep or merge. While this article could certianly use improvement, opponents of this article no valid reason to delete it. Their arguments consist of broad accusations and snide remarks which clearly demonstrates that they have not thoroughly read or interacted with this article prior to submitting a notion to delete. ^{— Unsigned, by: Floof37 / talk / contribs}

Merge/redirect[edit]

Merge into biphobia, cutting back the twitter-centric content. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 20:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

From my perspective, possibly this article should be merged with biphobia and subsequently improved? BLERF / PLERF seems to be very much an online phenomenon with limited currency. But it seems to kind of fit into biphobia's duality of having both da HATERS from the homophobic cis crowd in addition to a number of people in the LGBTQ+ community (generally homosexual men or women) who still can't fathom the notion that bisexuality/non-binary/pansexuality/"we are our own sexual thing"/etc. actually exists. (Shame there isn't a catch-all term for this curious phenomenon that covers more than bisexuality though. It's for those who compartmentalize sexuality into two neat "boxes" in essence.)

For the little I've seen online, the seemingly contradictory term "bisexual / pansexual lesbian" basically is used to describe (as pointed out in the article) either a non-binary/gender-fluid person or a romantic vs. sexual attraction difference (eg "lesbian" romantic attraction, "pansexual" sexual attraction).BobJohnson (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if the best solution wouldn't just be to create a lesbian page, then compress these arguments into a "terminology" section, leaving a redirect. I found it strange for a while now that lesbian just redirects to homosexuality. A page that by the way doesn't even have a lesbian section. If such a page existed on its own I would support this option, but it doesn't. Chillpilled (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I've made Lesbianism. Although it could use more, maybe that merge idea is viable. Chillpilled (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The keep side has given out detailed reasons as to why to keep this article. I'd like to see those yammering for "delete" to actually explain their reasoning. From the get-go the initial reason given for this AfD, which is "stop redefining words," suggests to me that "Atheeizt" didn't even read the article in question, which explains in detail the history of the terminology of Lesbianism (@Chillpilled did an excellent job on that BTW) and how radfems in the 70s redefined the word to mean exclusive attraction to women rather than inclusive attraction to women. If anything, bi and pan lesbians are reclaiming the word. This definitely seems to have an ideological as opposed to missional bias. And yes, crying about "Tumblrinas" is ideological. Shit that occurs on the Internet can easily spill over into meatspace. Rhetoric has power. This shouldn't be up for dispute. Carthage (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

September 2023[edit]

Evolutionary ethics | Result: Hume decisively beats Darwin 5-1.[edit]

Evolutionary ethics – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Violates Hume's law. Exact same pattern of thought that leads us to Social Darwinism and eugenics. Fails to account for facets of human culture that are irrelevant to reproductive fitness or population survival such as gender identity. Problem with evidential standards that lead to "just-so stories" that are more akin to mythology than science. All-in-all just a gigantic load of bullshit. I would be in favor of keeping it if someone were to do a critical overhaul of the article but I don't really see that happening. Feel free to prove me wrong though. Carthage (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is all over the place. The lede rather misrepresents the significance of evolutionary ethics, which is primarily as descriptive ethics, with secondary relevance to metaethics and, as it stands, essentially no normative implications; the normative theory "what's good is what best promotes fitness" is generally considered implausible. It's not obvious that "in order to both survive and, more importantly, reproduce individuals must — at some level — learn to cooperate with members of their own species" is true on the ordinary notion of cooperation. Rather, the role of "at some level" here seems to be to so widen the sense of 'cooperation' as to void its meaning. The subsequent point that this is especially true for social species like humans is vacuous, amounting to saying, "cooperation is especially important within cooperative species". The reply the article makes to the Social Darwinist isn't very good, either. The Social Darwinist could simply move from arguing for the destruction of weak races to the destruction of weak individuals (to keep with the article's terminology). The point that we share 99.9% of our DNA is a non sequitur; the Social Darwinist will simply say that the last 0.1% makes a great deal of difference. The article ends with a link to an essay against a Conservapedia user. Also, "a claim frequently made by some religious theorists" is particularly glaring weaseling. Which religious theorists are saying this? Are their views representative of religious theorists, or do they only form a subgroup? Are they especially notable or influential? Altogether, since no section is particularly impressive, and since each section has significant problems, there seems to be little value to lose here. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
One of the most confused articles on the site. I have made my arguments previously on the article talk page.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
as per above and burn it. A somebody. (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I read other user’s comments on the talk page, and I agree this article doesn’t make any sense. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

"Promotes Social Darwinism", my foot. Carthage is wildly off the mark. This page is clearly intended to examine the origin of morality from an evolution-oriented, naturalistic point of view. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The article conflates cultural evolution with biological evolution. Morality, at least to some extent, is influenced by culture, which is an emergent property of human social relationships. Confucian ethics are very different from the ethics of liberalism. Evolutionary ethics has a problem with "just-so stories" that offer little in the way of evidence, and it's very easy to extrapolate evolutionary "ethics" as a sort of prescriptive norm as Social Darwinism and eugenics does/did. Carthage (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't explain how I'm off the mark. Assuming this article examines the evolutionary origins of morality, it does a piss-poor job of doing so and again fails to take into account cultural factors that play into how ethics manifests from society to society. Carthage (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
…That's kind of the problem with studying the past. Barring human societies that meticulously recorded their activities in a manner that's still legible today, ultimately, the best we can do with the distant past is "just so stories", at least as far as the precise details of how and why certain things happened. We can certainly use available evidence to make extremely good guesses (such as geological evidence that very, very strongly suggests that the flood described in the Book of Genesis either outright didn't occur or at the very least didn't cover the entire planet and/or last for forty days), but the further back in time you go, the harder it becomes to say anything specific for certain, and if you go back to before the invention of writing and the start of history, well, then it gets nearly impossible, as the best we have are fossils. Now bear in mind that contemporary psychology has lots of debate and very few accepted hard facts, as the social sciences tend to have less hard data available than "hard" sciences like biology or physics. We just can't freaking know exactly what went through the heads of our caveman ancestors. "Just so stories" describing the most likely path to where we are today will have to suffice.

And another thing, evolutionary ethics is very clearly a description of "how ethics developed", not "what ethics should look like". Luigifan18 (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, except it still conflates biological evolution with cultural evolution when the two are very distinct. This article is also all over the place, and just handwaves away the problem of applying evolutionary theory as a prescriptive norm. Something you're also doing. This article definitely deserves a critical overhaul and as it stands right now is garbage. Carthage (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Though now I think about this some more the article could be edited to why "Evolutionary ethics" is dumb idea. This might be better than deletion, and most editors who are interested seem of a similar mind about the concept.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Maoist Rebel News | Result: not particularly worthy of archiving[edit]

Maoist Rebel News – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Article about a Maoist crank with only a couple hundred views per video and only about roughly 40k subscribers. Carthage (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete over new YouTube sub cutoff CS vote. Moon Sock (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Irrelevant nowadays ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Seems rather derivative. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 00:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
'What kind of garbage is that? Oops my rationalwiki article.' A somebody. (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Conservapedia:Greatest achievements of human history | Result: Keep[edit]

Conservapedia:Greatest achievements of human history – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Incredible cultural and gender bias. Perpetuates the discredited "great man theory" of history. Unfunny listicle. Meant to refute a "theory" of human history that everyone not named Andrew Schlafly recognizes is stupid. We need to cut the excess fat in our essay and Conservapedia spaces anyways. Might as well start here. Carthage (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This probably should have been in Conservapedia space rather than essay space anyway. Andy Schlafly once said something incredibly stupid (not surprising because he's a fucking twat who doesn't know shit from sawdust) and this essay is an overlong response to that. It's a bit of our Conservapedia-obsessed past that we can do without. Spud (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Nothing really interesting or unique in this essay, delete. A somebody. (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
It's a bad listicle that drags our essay space down. And it's not like we're picking on any one user here. This is a collaborative effort like any article we've deleted. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Our essay space says: "Discussion is encouraged on the talk page of each essay but the essay itself should not be edited without express invitation by the original author." When essay space was created one of the reasons was to give people who did not actually share our worldview an opportunity to present a different case and thus avoid groupthink. Nothing would be lost if we deleted this one, but I would object on principle as we would then create a precedent for deleting any essay we didn't agree with and thus remove one of the reasons the namespace exists. (Having said that, at no time have we allowed essays which encourage hate-speech or similar things.)Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Be that as it may, what exact reason should we keep this essay in particular? It's also a Conservapedia-related essay, and the Conservapedia section of this site definitely suffers from bloat. We can disregard that this is an individual essay, because it's not, it's a group project to refute an uninteresting bit of Schlaflyite wisdom. There's nothing of substance to be found here, nothing interesting. Just a boring listicle to refute a theory no one other than Andy actually takes seriously with serious issues related to bias and theory. Carthage (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I said: "Nothing would be lost if we deleted this one,". You have not responded to my broader point.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Notice how I said we can easily discard the essay issue and focus on the fact that it's (fundamentally) a Conservapedia article? Carthage (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Then you might want to concentrate on CP space where I (personally) would have fewer issues. And you have still not responded to my broader point.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Thinking about it some more I have a compromise. I don't really like "essays" with multiple authors (though few people here will remember me complaining about it years ago). And we have occasionally moved "essays" from essay space to other spaces. If it were moved to CP space and then deleted I would have no problems.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
It might have been better to wait for other opinions before actually doing the move though. I see it happened almost instantly.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, keep. Ψ (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep and move back to essayspace. It's deeply flawed, but it's just editors' opinions. Bongolian (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep and move back to essayspace. Christopher (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't like listicles, and I hate CP-related content even more, but since we can't delete everything CP-related, I don't see why we should delete this one. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I think that just because the general consensus is to keep some CP-related articles, that shouldn't mean we should keep all CP-related material. Carthage (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Question; is this a theory that they repeatedly, and continue into the present to make? If not, I lean towards 'move back to EssaySpace'. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Why should that make any difference? Most of our Conservapedia stuff gives a snapshot of the site and its users as they were 14 years ago. None of them trace their development up to 2023. This idea was probably one of those things Andy was obsessed with for a while. Then something else came along and he forgot about it. Spud (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Stars are Souls | Result: Thrown into the orbs or living energy[edit]

Stars are Souls – (View AfD

Delete[edit]

Deleted most of his videos a while ago and falls well under the 100k sub requirements A somebody. (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
True. Only has 6,580 subscribers. Spud (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Carthage (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Please learn to format your AFDs properly. Plutocow (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Gareth Young | Result: Struck down[edit]

Gareth Young – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

It's about a blogger, and every reference is to their blog, which has been defunct for over a decade; the domain is now for sale. That wouldn't make for an especially interesting essay. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Of no historical value. Scrap it. Spud (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Executed in 2015 for treason against the conservative party. A somebody. (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Uninteresting. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Getting moved to essayspace wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but the article doesn't really engage with his viewpoints so I wouldn't really want this to be marked with "by RationalWiki users". Plutocow (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Why are people suggesting this be moved to essayspace? What is essayspace for these days? Christopher (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Seems to be the work of a single essayist and not substantially updated in over ten years. Move to the essay space or delete? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Draft:Mike Christofi | Result: Delete[edit]

Draft:Mike Christofi – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

An unsourced draft on an (apparently) living person. I could only find one website that seemingly had anything to do with the subject, and it doesn't look like a fantastic source or anything, not to mention how spammy this draft looks. Plutocow (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Nah, just delete it. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I'll delete it. Bongolian (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Ogism | Result: Moved to essayspace[edit]

Ogism – (View AfD

Delete[edit]

irreverent very edgy trolls that fall well under the new 20k youtube sub requirements A somebody. (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Even collectively, they fall under 5k let alone 20k, and that's assuming there is no overlap in subscribers. Hell, one of them is below 100 subscribers! Maybe a page on Albanian or just general Balkan nationalism that can go over some of their points could be warranted, but this community is too small to be notable under our new cutoff. Plutocow (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

~~regret making this page ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)~~ ~~It's also poorly written. Carthage (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)~~

Keep[edit]

The page is rather comprehensive, and it is part of our mission to keep tabs on the alt-right and expose them as ignorant losers. Let's not let these dipshits fly under the radar. Luigifan18 (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

move to essayspace ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
This is a rather good idea actually. It's a neat compromise between Luigifan's valid points and the points of A somebody and Plutocow. Carthage (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Carthage — Aethieizt (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete or essayspace it. I almost want to just say delete because, ironically although the page mentions Encyclopædia Dramatica in relation to them, this is the level of page I would have expected to see on ED about some random internet clique. This looks like some racist group of trolls who just go around vandalizing Fandom articles or something while maintaining a small YouTube channel. Might be better suited as a Fandom page somewhere if any of the afflicted wikis care enough to host it. Chillpilled (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
If Edward would rather it be moved to essayspace, then that's what I'll vote. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Constitution of the New America | Result: Moved to essayspace[edit]

Constitution of the New America – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not notable. Just some random weirdo from over 16 years ago!!! Ψ (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
So it's a mainspace article that's a response to something a drive-by RationalWiki editor (who only ever made 3 edits) put on his RationalWiki user page 16 years ago! Oh, for fuck's sake! Burn the fucker to the ground. Spud (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
all the caps lock burned up my brain. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 12:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Burn it. A somebody. (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

~~lets close this fast ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)~~

What in the hell is this? WetWilly (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Move to essayspace. Plutocow (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Essayspace. Seems like it may have some historical value, but just for RW itself. I tried quote-searching part of this thing on Google. Didn't turn up anything recent. Matter of fact whatever "other forums" it was posted to must no longer exist, since I pretty much wasn't turning up anything at all. Wouldn't be too opposed to just TNT'ing the article entirely rather than moving, but ~~slightly~~ favor this option just because it's so damn old and somebody evidently put a lot of effort into writing whatever this is. Chillpilled (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Move to Essayspace. It's mentioned in the book Re-Framers: 170 Eccentric, Visionary, and Patriotic Proposals to Rewrite the U.S. Constitution by John R. Vile (2014), but the actual text appears nowhere else now. It might be of use to someone at some point Bongolian (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
That's kind of intriguing. That book actually even cites the RationalWiki page itself at one point. Chillpilled (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
←§ Edward the eight (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Carthage (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Normal | Result: Moved to funspace[edit]

Normal – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

A meandering, unmissional (in its current state) stub. There's probably a lot that's interesting to say about what is considered "normal" in society, but the article as it stands is useless. Plutocow (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Not funny either. Carthage (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Either burn it or send it to funspace. A somebody. (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

It could use a major cleanup and rewrite, but I say keep. WetWilly (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Could be moved to funspace. Bongolian (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. Spud (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Send it back to draftspace, maybe? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
As much as I respect and admire the old guard of RW (even though very few of them are still active) this article is one of the reasons why I can't take seriously those claims that RW was better 15 years ago than now. If this article had been written in 2023, it would never reach the main space in its current status. I think fun space is better than the draft space since no one has bothered to improve it since it was created. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Funspace. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Liberal Logic 101 | Result: Owned[edit]

Liberal Logic 101 – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The site is seemingly dead, all the links just redirect to their main page. Their twitter account has less than 20 followers. Their Gab page has like, 169 GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Conservatives being stupid on the internet. Neither interesting nor worthy of our time. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
So, the site devolved into an advertisement for a crummy book. Who cares? Make it vanish. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Meh.Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
As said above Ψ (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Young Cons | Result: Deleted[edit]

Young Cons – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Very irrelevant article that has no place in rationalwiki today Aethieizt (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Of the 4 links used in the article, only one (the link to their long dead youtube channel) is still active. 47.150.20.17 (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Very short videos, last upload 9 years ago, less than 2000 subs (1.89k) (I thought 10000 was the minimum for YT channels to be added to the site?). Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, their facebook page has nearly a million followers, but their standard conservative posts seem to rarely get above a hundred reactions or so. 47.150.20.17 (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Arcadium Trancefer No, YouTubers only have to have 1,000 subscribers to get an article here. Spud (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
(っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I think its pretty funny. They were popular for 15 minutes and now they are completely forgotten except for a small page on this website. Ψ (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

August 2023[edit]

Geraldine Ferraro | Result: Deleted[edit]

Geraldine Ferraro – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Unlikely to be expanded and only marginally missional. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Borderline not missional (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Minor stub about an obscure politician. Yeet! Carthage (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Not really an obscure politician at all (VP candidate of 1984 election and reasonably active in US politics before and after) but I cannot think of a mission-oriented aspect of her. BobJohnson (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a difference between "obscure" and "not notable". How popular is Geraldine Ferraro in the popular discourse today, or even scholarly discourse for that matter? Carthage (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
She was important for a year or so but definitely not now. Her impact was pretty minimal at best. Ψ (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Cosmik. However, I'm saying that with the caveat that I'm not American and thus, I might be missing something here. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Given that the article has been here since 2008 and it's still a pathetic, unreferenced stub, it needs to be put out of its misery. As a Limey who was only 10 when she was at her peak, I only know her name from a punchline in an old Garfield book. But that's beside the point. Spud (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
What was the punchline? Ψ (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Punchline is overstating it a bit. It's from The Garfield How to Party Book (1988, ISBN 0345357248) which really has dick all to do with Garfield, apart from the illustrations. Anyway, it has an idea for a Secret Santa in it which entails people asking for really extravagant presents. When they get their gifts, they hear, "I couldn't get you..., but this will do." So if they ask for a trip to Paris, they get some French fries. If they ask for a Ferrari, they get a picture of Geraldine Ferraro. Spud (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I was the one who updated it a day or two ago to add her dates of birth and death, even if I wondered at the time if it was an article relevant to RW, at least in its current form. Time to delete, me thinks, and I'll go on with my happy wonking. JumboWhales (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

It makes sense this article was created in 2008. She caused a stir during the 2008 U.S. presidential election after she said (from her Fox News post and as a Hillary campaign official) that Obama wouldn't have been winning if he weren't a black man. And, after he responded, she said he was sexist and just criticizing her because she was white. That's some more recent activity of interest, but I don't know if it changes anyone's mind. Chillpilled (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Fun:Wikipedia | Result: Struck out[edit]

Fun:Wikipedia – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Just relying on strike out humour alone is not funny. And strike out humour in general has had its day. I thought this page must have been created 12 years ago. But no! It was created two days ago. Spud (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
As I said on the talk page, I'd love to have a page about Wikipedia on the fun space, but this one is not good enough. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This shit was created 2 days ago? Jesus Christ. Carthage (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
What the... —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
A Fun:Wikipedia page could work. Maybe if Yassine Mehdi expands it it could be kept. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I mean it is a fun page so.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ψ (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Adam Ruins Everything | Result: Keep[edit]

Adam Ruins Everything – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

~~#YouTube stub of no real importance to the site. Even less missional than some articles that got deleted. Moon Sock (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)~~

Keep[edit]

Not just a YouTube stub, the guy had his own TV show. The article's in a pretty sorry state, but the subject is relevant for the same reasons as Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Plutocow (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
The article is a stubby mess and needs some work, but the subject is missional. And, it's not a Youtube sub. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
From what I've seen on YouTube, this was a missional and fun TV series, that was unfortunately cancelled n 2019. They said some things that were wrong. But at least they did a whole episode dedicated to some of their mistakes. Should be kept and expanded. Spud (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
You know, I was wrong about this. It's clearly missional. However, I add that it must be moved into draftspace, as it's nowhere ready for primetime yet. Moon Sock (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Korephilia | Result: Had the FBI called on it[edit]

Korephilia – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Apparently, according to the talkpage there are questionable motivations behind this article's creation. But even ignoring that, it's a stub that's redundant to pedophilia. Plutocow (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Don't think this needs to exist. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Bongolian (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Make it go away. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
In addition to the above, I do not believe that this is in very common use. As far as I can tell, it is not a diagnosis used in medical fields (4 results in Google Scholar, none of them psychiatry or medicine related vs. 43K for pedophilia in general). BobJohnson (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Nope. Moon Sock (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fun:Time wasting websites | Result: Wasted[edit]

Fun:Time wasting websites – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Most of these websites are either dead links or rely on the now dead Adobe Flash. This page just isn't useful anymore. Plutocow (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
(っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Category:Fact checking articles | Result: Debunked[edit]

Category:Fact checking articles – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This category doesn't seem to have been used much, and there really isn't much point to it. Plutocow (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Think this can be speedy. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Pointless. Spud (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Category:Cover story nominees | Result: Pruned[edit]

Category:Cover story nominees – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Outdated category, we have RW:Articles for demotion now. There's no real reason to keep this. Plutocow (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Think this can be speedy. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

~~Actually no, I think there's no point in removing it.~~ Template:Cover is still added to talk pages for gold-nominated articles (and kept as {{cover|approved}} when gold). The category may not matter much, but it doesn't hurt either. It just now pointed me to one article that needed to have that template call updated. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The template should be updated anyway, as its documentation refers to policies that no longer exist. If the category needs to be removed, that's a bonus. Plutocow (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

On third thought, fine, with these additional updates we're making it makes sense. Furthermore, I'll see to using DPL to add an auto-list at Help:Cover stories for any gold articles with missing cover pages. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

That extra idea turned out too complex for DPL, unfortunately. But regardless, what we end up with is no worse than before without it. One possible further change is to change Template:Rated so it automatically includes Template:Cover for gold, after all they are always supposed to be used together. (All gold article talk pages would need updating, though.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I did that later change. Now people are not meant to manually add {{cover}} at all anymore, instead only {{rated}} is used. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fun:Fidiot | Result: Fannihilated, alongside two similar pages[edit]

Fun:Fidiot – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

If we're gonna start cleaning funspace, here would be a good place to start. It's not funny, containing just a definition and some links. This is also an AFD for Fun:Woogle and Fun:Philosophooey which have the same problems. Plutocow (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Garbage that needs to be thrown out. Delete all three of them. Spud (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Didn't laugh. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Candidate for speedy deletion. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fun:Danish | Result: Something is rotten in the state of RW[edit]

Fun:Danish – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Stupid article with no reason to exist. Not even funny and would be better served as a redirect to our article on Denmark. Carthage (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, a very poor stub of a humor article.--ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Wow I caused this (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Category:BreadTubers | Result: Toast[edit]

Category:BreadTubers – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Aside from the general problems with defining BreadTube (which have only gotten worse since the deletion of the BreadTube article, as some of the people in the category explicitly don't identify with BreadTube) there's nothing that this category does that can't be accomplished with Category:YouTube and Category:Left-wing activists. BreadTube was maybe a relevant concept for a couple of years, but now the category feels really outdated. Plutocow (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed - make it brown bread. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Pluto said it best. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

John F. Kennedy's commencement address at American University | Result: Assassinated[edit]

John F. Kennedy's commencement address at American University – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Another reference page that is not terribly useful to our mission. In fact, this article is even more useless than the "text of abortion bills" pages, as I'm not sure what part of RW this is supposed to be a supplement to. At best, this is just a puff piece containing some sixty-year old speech, and I don't think anyone will miss it if it gets deleted. Plutocow (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
No mainspace page links to it, so that's sufficient for me. Bongolian (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Carthage (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I am not hugely fussed about 'our mission' [I would argue about keeping some non-mission pages about if they were still of worth to the public] but this page does not have worth. The JFK Library provides the full transcript and WP page provides decent commentary/background on it. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Category:Politically homophobic people with gay children | Result: 2-1 for a week; it's gone[edit]

Category:Politically homophobic people with gay children – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This category seems too convoluted to be useful, plus it feels like it is prying into the personal lives of non-public figures. I don't really think we need this. Plutocow (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I argue that if they're public figures who have made their own phobia a public issue, then yes I do think mentioning their own spawn are the apparent thing they loathe/despise, because it is telling how they react to this - I remember Michael Moore made this comment in [I think] Stupid White Men that one of the few damn times Cheney acted like an actual human being was when his daughter came out. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
This is an interesting fact on the respective pages (although I'll point out that on Ted Cruz it is used in lieu of actual coverage as far as I can tell). It is however not something worth categorizing. Categories exist to find related articles. "What politicians have gay kids and dislike the gays" is however bordering on the stalking end. I rarely agree with Pluto, but this is a case where I do agree. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

The name is clunky, but I otherwise think it’s fine. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

But all said, the category itself is clunky and of limited use. However, I do think there might be some call for a wider 'familial hypocrisy' category where a public figure practices clear doublethink/standards when the subject is within their own circle [so not just homophobia]. But again, if it's a straight [har har] Delete/Keep fight, I'd lean towards the former. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

July 2023[edit]

Fun:Subway diet | Result: Had Chris Hansen called on it[edit]

Fun:Subway diet – (View AfD)

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

Delete[edit]

This joke hasn't really aged well, if it was ever even particularly funny in the first place. This page just feels very awkward and is just a relic of an older time. I don't see any reason to keep this around. Plutocow (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
KILL! A somebody. (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Aged poorly considering Jared’s pedo scandal. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. We wouldn't have kept Fun:Jim'll Fix It, would we? Spud (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
It's just not very funny. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 13:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Jonathan Kane | Result: Keep[edit]

Jonathan Kane – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

recreated this article from a redirect. I now believe it is best to delete the article as Kane is not notable for anything apart from co-authoring a single book on anti-creationism, there is also the issue of some Wiki drama involving Kane and Smith that everyone here is fed up with reading. The Wiki/Wars drama is not relevant to RationalWiki. It's obvious to me that Jonathan Kane is the pseudonym Shuichi Tezuka who has written for Quillette and other right-wing magazines as there are a lot of give away clues but Kane denies this and doesn't want to be linked with other identities. As there are no other references linking him to such accounts then he probably should be cited. He's likely also the blocked Wikipedia user Gardenofaleph. I agree that there are no other sources identifying him as these other names so it would be our own research to try and link him to these other online pseudonyms. As far as I know the only other name he admits openly to using the blocked Wikipedia account Captain Occam but the Wiki drama is irrelevant to RationalWiki. The Emily Willoughby article should be kept but I believe this one should be deleted and redirected back into the Willoughby article. Johns (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

The article is mostly fine other than the creationism stuff, it should not be deleted and we should not be bullied into deleting or whitewashing it. Strong Keep. A somebody. (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I concur with A. somebody. Also Kane is notable to some extent for his Quillette work and overall involvement with racialist pseudoscience. My vote is a tentative "keep." Carthage (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
You're so fucking stupid, Johns. I've never seen an AfD more full of shit. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The points I have raised are valid. It's obvious Shuichi Tezuka for Quillette is Kane but there is no way to prove it because we have no independent references saying that pseudonym is him. Although this website tolerates original research, when I write a biographical article I believe it is best to cite secondary sources to verify controversial or important information and keep it as accurate as possible. It's not possible to show with independent sources that Kane is Shuichi Tezuka or his other online identities. This means removing most of his article apart from his creationist work which would then be a boring article. Johns (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, at least we're agreed that the Tezuka material needs to be removed, and nobody seems to be arguing against that conclusion. Based on the votes thus far, it looks like this article probably won't be deleted, so I'll make the necessary change shortly. --Tetrapteryx (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Changed my vote to keep, just entirely remove the Wiki drama and outdated race drama and keep it as an anti-creationist article which is on-mission and better sourced. Johns (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Just a note that Mikey has already tried socking this up. I am willing to protect this AfD if the socking continues, as I actually want this to be a productive discussion and not the sockfest that these AfDs inevitably turn into.
As for the case itself, I am mostly ambivalent but it shouldn't be deleted just because it attracts trolls; Mikey will be here regardless of whether this stays or not because he has no life and he should really be disregarded in discussions like this. Regardless, this article (and the similar Emily Willoughby one) rely a bit to much on Wikipedia drama and other forum posts for my liking, and they don't seem to have much of a public presence beyond that. Perhaps the Emily Willoughby article can be merged into this one and it can be streamlined, but I'm not the biggest fan of the article in this state. Plutocow (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I am also ambivalent about this article, but am confident that the RW community can make it better. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent too. We don't bow to trolls and we don't delete articles just because their subjects don't like them. But this person just seems to me to be an ex-racist and ex-creationist who isn't really notable. (He isn't regularly on TV or radio. He isn't a YouTuber with millions of subscribers. He doesn't have a weekly newspaper column. He isn't even a bestselling author. He doesn't have much of a platform to promote good or evil.) And I really don't want to give the subject the opportunity to turn his article into a puff piece for self promotion. Spud (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
He is not an 'ex-racist' he is a current racist. A somebody. (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm the subject of this article, so maybe my opinion will be discounted for that reason, but I should comment on the suggestion that this article downplay my anti-creationism work while focusing on the fact that I was involved in the Wikipedia "race and intelligence" drama in 2010. If that ends up being the outcome, it's likely the YEC organizations will eventually use this article to discredit not just me, but also the other anti-creationism authors who cite me. My anti-creationism writings are extensively cited in The Rocks Were There by Downard & Wheat, and professional "creation scientists" have cited my writings to concede I was correct on certain points here and here. I'm one of the two or three most-cited anti-creationist authors on the origin of birds. Please make sure covering a 13-year-old Wikipedia drama is important enough that it's worth providing further support for the creationist claim (as routinely made by by Jerry Bergman) that opponents of creationism inevitably are racists. --Tetrapteryx (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I think you have a better shot at attempting to edit the article yourself and trying to get consensus than hoping that it will be deleted, at the rate this AfD is going. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Kane has been warned off of editing his own article FTR. Carthage (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Chickenhawks | Result: Turned into Chicken wings.[edit]

Template:Chickenhawks – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Only transcluded on four articles. Too niche of a topic to make sense as a nav sidebar — every article with the box is a better fit for the more general politics sidebars, so it just provides needless clutter. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
As per above. A somebody. (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Why is this a template? Carthage (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

If deleted, the few mainspace pages that include the template should have the Category:Chickenhawks added. The template auto-inserts the category. Bongolian (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Digg Patriots | Result: Dug too deep[edit]

Digg Patriots – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

As I said in the afd this article barely has any sources and is nothing but irrelevant drama Edward the eight (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Carthage (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. Who gives a flying fuck about what some arseholes used to do on the internet in 2010? Spud (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
-Flandres (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
—cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Burn it! A somebody. (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Barrett Brown (Second nomination) | Result: Keep[edit]

Barrett Brown – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

For the reason that Barrett himself mentioned on the talk page. -- A somebody

Keep[edit]

Nothing has really changed since the last time this was nominated. Plutocow (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
—cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 12:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Why? It's fine. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Sod me! The last time it was nominated for deletion was only on 11 May this year. What the hell has changed in the last 10 weeks? Try again in December, I say. Spud (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The article also exists on Wikipedia.[13] Contractor (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Strange case, but I'll vote to keep. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Bongolian (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Didn't we go through this already? Plutocow (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes this is the second time that it has been nominated, however some of the votes to keep were because of two "suspicious" BONs, who were the same person, so I believe that we should do this, again. A somebody. (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Essay:Evil, but Hawt! | Result: Shoved into a trash compactor[edit]

Essay:Evil, but Hawt! – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

What's the point of this? It seems creepy 2600:1002:B022:A613:F189:3423:C734:E894 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
It's stupid, pointless, and creepy. Also Putin's hot? Seriously? Fuck no. Carthage (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Wtf is this article ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The old guard was pretty much as Edgy as your average Frogposter, it seems (2012-2013 was the peak for this kind of stuff on the internet. If you think this is bad, Youtubers (comment sections) sometimes went further than this.). Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Lure this article back into the soviet union with false pretenses of giving it a journalist job, arrest it, give it a show trial, sentence it to death, and shot it in the basement of a prison. A somebody. (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Not as funny as it thinks it is. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. It's not 2012 anymore. We've grown up. Spud (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Get rid of this. Rational Dude (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Category:Key concepts in atheism | Result: Key concept in deletion[edit]

Category:Key concepts in atheism – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

What's the point of this category? Do we need "key concepts in Christianity" or other analagous categories? The page mentions the atheism navbox, but that doesn't rely on this category. In short, there is no reason to have this. Plutocow (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The "key concepts" should be adequately described in the main article with appropriate "see also" links to child articles as appropriate. The category is superfluous. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 00:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Carthage (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of the articles in the category don't even seem to be to fit the definition of "key concepts". Spud (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Cosmik. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Category:Para-fascism | Result: Banned from school libraries[edit]

Category:Para-fascism – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Just like para-fascists, this category isn't well defined. A lot of articles are being grouped into this category. Rational Dude (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Please format this properly. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
It's my first time using this, so I didn't know how to format it. Rational Dude (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Didn't knew you were back, Andrew5. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
”Fascism that […] lacks certain elements of fascism” is not a useful or even meaningful category. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 20:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Dumb category that ends up being applied to any right-wing person an editor doesn’t like. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Let's recap this. It's a category with only 23 entries [and one is very iffy] which is based off 211 words in the main 'Fascism' page which is a term one person coined near 20 years back which relies on two refs for it's existence and has generated very little traction with the wider public since [if my quick Google search is anything to go by]. Nuke the thing and let's move on with our lives. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
What Serene and Duce said above. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 00:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
We already have "alt-right" and "alt-lite" as categories. Carthage (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

@Rational Dude The purpose of an AFD is to get community consensus before doing any deleting. Not only did you completely fuck up the AfD (even though there are clear instructions on how to do this) you mass deleted every article in this category and blanked the page before any votes were tallied! This behavior is completely unacceptable. You have been warned about this kind of shit before. Please cease immediately unless you'd like to get hauled into the moderator board and/or coop and possibly stripped of your ability to contribute here. I'm getting very tired of you running amok in complete and total disregard of the Community Standards. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 00:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I think this is pointing at something legitimate, but para-fascism is the wrong category name for this. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree. The category's description says it includes ideologies that demonstrate "extreme right-wing populism but lack[s] certain elements of fascism", but a lot of these seem more like general extremist right-wing movements that may or may not have populist elements. Perhaps "Right-wing extremism" would be a better name? DietMondrian (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion on the AFD for Category:Para-fascists also had the suggestion of neo-fascism as a more established related term. However, that seems closer to being an academically proper term for much which is simply categorized as fascism on RW. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Text of Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act | Result: Ruled unconstitutional[edit]

Text of Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Article just provides the text of a struck-down bill, which can be provided with an external link and does not need to be on this wiki. Many similar articles have been deleted before, so why should this remain? The "unknown copyright status" is just the cherry on top Plutocow (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it's pointless. Spud (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
We've done this before. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Burn it. A somebody. (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I put a link in the article to case law containing the text of this law in the appendix. That makes this article redundant. Yeet it out the Solar System for all I care. Carthage (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Agree, now entirely safe to remove.BobJohnson (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Perhaps of some value if someone actually gave it some background, analysis etc. But if nobody can be arsed to do this, I'm not gonna weep if it gets memory holed. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, we have Edwards v. Aguillard, which provides the background but is a bit stubby. Plutocow (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree that with context it might be worth something. The general subject matter is certainly within the scope of the mission. But it's not doing a lot just sitting by itself.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It should be referenced in Edwards v. Aguillard (but it isn't). The Arizona version of this is noted in the much more comprehensive McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education article (it looks like a similar reference page for that article has already been deleted).

At any rate, the text of the law in this reference page (along with an appeals court decision) can be found here (via Public.Resource.Org). For some reason, the Supreme Court decision already linked in the RW article doesn't seem to have the law text, and Louisiana's digital archives are a hot mess, but for the appeals court decision, the text of the Louisiana law is neatly enclosed in the appendix. BobJohnson (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Corrected. Carthage (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

George Tarleton | Result: Delete[edit]

George Tarleton – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Couldn't find anything about this person on the Internet. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him, only briefly mentions his organization. There are, however, many results on Google because of a comic book homonym. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC) GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Another case of "we don't need an article on every single crank". Only the most influential ones. Again, ideas, rather than people, should be our focus. Spud (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
A nutjob whom nobody, not even the crankiest cranks knows about, delete and throw this article into the fire. A somebody. (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Woefully obscure even by RW's standards, and the Hulk meme is not particularly funny. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 12:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Richard Haier | Result: Satire is dead[edit]

Richard Haier – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

According to the author, this piece was written as a parody.[14] I don't have any reason to believe it wasn't. According to his Wikipedia article, he signed an article supporting The Bell Curve with dozens of other researchers in the 90s and that's it. Support speedy deletion. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Carthage (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Scream!! (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
—cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Page was explicitly made in bad faith; it's now going bye-bye. Plutocow (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

He has appeared on podcasts with Jordan Peterson [15], and is mentioned in this piece by Angela Saini [16]. I believe a re-write from scratch would be a better idea. Johns (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Uyghur genocide hoax | Result: Became a hoax[edit]

Draft:Uyghur genocide hoax – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Even ignoring the questionable motivations behind this draft, it's just not worth its own article and is at most worth a section in another article. Just get rid of this. Plutocow (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
The title suggests where this is going. Check Uyghur genocide. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeaaaaaaah best to nip this in the bud. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Tinfoilery doesn't belong on this site. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
BobJohnson (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Was thinking about gutting this. Extra clarity and consensus helps. Patty Pat 15:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

I'm ambivalent. Yeah the article's shit but it raises some valid points, like Soviet involvement in the Xinjiang conflict. I'd say to make it a subsection of the already existing article on the Uyghur genocide, but the deletionists are probably gonna get their way. Carthage (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there a citation for the "genocide hoaxes" being a part of this though? I'm not seeing a result in Google. "Genocide" is not mentioned at all in the Google books referenced, except for two instances referring to the current conflict and one reference to "cultural genocide" in a round-table from 2005.

Adding the Soviet involvement as background to the Uighur genocide article would be welcome, but this draft is crap. BobJohnson (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

June 2023[edit]

Dean Baker | Result: Deleted[edit]

Dean Baker – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Baker is a literal nobody, I don't think I've heard of him since I was a freshman in college in 2011. He had his 15 minutes of fame when his fanboys said that he predicted the Great Depression. Now, predicting a crisis 6 years before is not even that remarkable, others also said that there was something wrong with the global economy back then (although, granted, a few others, like Rober Lucas, believed that everythign was fine). Additionally, the article seems to have some form of identity crisis: it was, a few years ago, just a puff piece. Now it tries to fight the idea that Baker is in fact a leftist. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Away with the puffpiecery. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
BURN IT! A somebody. (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Not much here. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

On the surface, I agree with 'Delete'; not that Baker is a nobody nor that it's not missional but more on the pragmatic reasoning that a) WP seems to cover him well enough, b) he hasn't done anything notable which WP could not cover and c) RW has a massive dearth of folks who actually know enough about economics to make this page worthwhile to have. However, I do wonder whether whether it's worth starting up a RW 'Center for Economic and Policy Research' page and redirecting from Baker. I did a look, and there's already four other RW pages which could link to CEPR. Plus, I would say it's more missional to cover think-tanks [if only to detail who funds them etc]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

I wouldn't say he's a literal nobody. He's got a Wikipedia page: Dean Baker, and he's reasonably missional (globalism, housing bubble, Keynesianism). Bongolian (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bongolian Perhaps it was an exaggeration of me to say that he's a literal nobody, but I can think of hundreds of economists that deserve an article more than him (and now I'm not being hyperbolic). We have articles on economists like Paul Krugman, Milton Friedman and Amartya Sen because they are part of the debate (whether they're correct is another history). We have articles on Karl Marx, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill because of their historical relevance. We have articles on many Austrian School economists because they are cranks. Baker is none of these things. If you want an evidence of his irrelevance, and how there are hundreds of better names for our Wiki, take a look at the Repec site, that lists the most cited economists [17]. There are thousands of names, including some heterodox economists that I despise, like L. Randall Wray and Ha-Joon Chang, but Baker is not there. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Notability isn't really a huge concern for the wiki though. As long as it's missional and not just some random guy off the street it's acceptable to have an article on the subject. Sure, there may be more notable economists but that means you should write articles on them rather than deleting this one. Plutocow (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Capitalists | Result: Bankrupted[edit]

Category:Capitalists – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

He was told by everyone he asked that creating this was a bad idea, but he did it anyway. Basically, "capitalists" is so broad it could apply to almost everyone who has an article on the wiki, it could mean ideological capitalists, anyone who doesn't explicitly oppose capitalism, or anyone who is part of a capitalist society regardless of their views. Furthermore, there is a considerable difference between free-market absolutists and those who prefer regulated economies. Finally, I feel like categories such as "conservatives" and "liberals" are better for conveying this concept. This category is too broad, poorly defined, and redundant to the point if being useless, so it should be deleted. Plutocow (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The category can be applied so widely that it becomes useless. I can’t see any good reason why we should pollute the taxonomy here with this one. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 01:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I competely agree with Plutocow and Cosmikdebris. Spud (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Bongolian (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Too broad and can apply to anyone ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree it's too broad, seems both vague and ambiguous, not very informative, seems like it would perhaps only really serve the purpose of labelling "people anti-capitalists don't like", in which I don't currently see the usefulness. I think other categories can (already) better cover whatever this one might. I agree with Plutocow and Cosmicdebris.ConverginglyRational (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Have to agree with with Cosmikdebris that this is a very broad and thus quite useless category. For those rich people that are interesting for this wiki, say, because they fund various nefarious and/or bullshit causes, there are other options already available (most prominently, “enablers”). While far from being some kind of Beltway libertarian, I don’t see why being “a capitalist” in and of itself(!) is of interest to the purpose of RW. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

As I argued at the Bar, there might be some merit in having this as 'Category: Vulgar Libertarians' as most of that the OP appeared to be aiming at under 'capitalist' generally appears to be variants of this 'screw you, I've got mine' mentality/ideology. Which I do think is RW-missional, as a lot of their justification is pseudo-economic in origin. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Ruben Sim | Result: No consensus[edit]

Ruben Sim – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Like, why? Why do we need to have an article on a "a washed up YouTuber turned delusional Twitter troll"? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 01:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I Concur, if we will not have an article on E;R, we probably shouldn't have an article on someone even more irrelevant to the average person. A somebody. (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a parcer call for E;R. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Youtube shitto Moon Sock (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

1.06M subscribers on YouTube, and still posting videos.[18] Bongolian (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
woefully under-documented shittiness that i havent found an archive of elsewhere 75.28.142.235 (talk)
Siding with Bongolian. Stop the Youtubephobia, please (I am aware that you and Duce have a murder boner towards Youtube). This is a influential platform. Expand this article. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I am not a fan of the youtubeosphere. But this article, as written, makes the subject sound so...irrelevant. The opening sentence says he is "...a washed up YouTuber turned delusional Twitter troll..." You'd think with 1.06M subscribers there's more to the story than this opener. If the article is retained, I hope someone will expand it properly. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Critical Analysis of Evolution | Result: Merged into Ed Brayton[edit]

Critical Analysis of Evolution – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Only missional by the vaguest standards, and contains no real information. Perhaps it can be slightly expanded and put into Ed Brayton, but as a standalone article there is no hope. Plutocow (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, merge it into Brayton. It's only 2 sentences. Bongolian (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Merge into Brayton's article. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Merge this. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Per --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 03:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Merge? Merge. Merge it. LeGrandePumbloom _{An Eldritch Abomination from the 21st Dimension} 21:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

May 2023[edit]

Catharine MacKinnon | Result: Exterminated[edit]

Catharine MacKinnon – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This article was technically also created by Nathan Larson, but he only wrote the intro so I won't hold it against this article as a whole. However, my real problem is that the article is built on a strawman of critical legal studies (on which we had an article that was so bad it got deleted) and remove that and you're left with less than a paragraph. Furthermore, there's nothing in this article that isn't covered under articles like Andrea Dworkin and Radical feminism, meaning this article has nothing substantive in it. Easy delete. Plutocow (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
It's also frequently citing book reviews rather than the books themselves. Bongolian (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Take the Article out back, shot it, burn its body, and dump the ashes into a volcano. 2601:281:D880:DED0:D9D2:FF3E:D27C:1E9F (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Per above, this one doesn't seem to warrant a separate article. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 13:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Barrett Brown | Result: Keep[edit]

Barrett Brown – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Does not meet mission statement and is full of misinformation and misinterpretation — some BON, 11 May 2023 (User:2601:281:d880:ded0:346c:2b6c:294c:b8d3)
The only way to improve this article in my opinion, is to burn it all down and restart again. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:281:D880:DED0:24E7:3603:7C1E:2BFE / talk / contribs}
Was created by a single user for obvious purpose of misinforming your readers, to such a ridiculous extent that its key claims have already been removed. To leave up anything else added by the same contributor - this entire page and nothing else - only makes sense to the extent that there's a reasonable expectation that a person who outright lies about a subject in the portions I've already addressed can nonetheless still be trusted on the same subject. It's certainly possible to me to go through all of the lengthy interviews that this user has paraphrased to present another set of falsehoods, and perhaps pull out quotes showing that I didn't say what I'm claimed to have said, but I would prefer that the burden of proof be on the person who's already been caught lying to prove his claims by quoting me, rather than on me to show that I didn't say these things any more than I'm a "targeted individual" and "Shyster". And I would think that readers would generally prefer such a standard. As it is, the article and the demonstrably false comments it contained have already been up for a year before I happened to come across it; it still contains falsehoods, including unsourced and debunked claims about the "co-founder of Anonymous" (and so does your page on Anonymous, in the very top quote; but that's another subject), such that I think it would be fair to remove all the contributions by that user and then, if you really need a page on me, have it written by regular contributors. - BB ^{— Unsigned, by: BarrettBrown / talk / contribs}
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 21:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Gotcha, thanks. I used to know that but it's been years. testing BarrettBrown (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Missional; improve not remove. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
It's missional enough insofar as it relates to Anonymous and Wikileaks. As previously noted to @BarrettBrown, we will correct anything that is inaccurate. Bongolian (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit too suspicious of the IP votes to let this slide. Plutocow (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@Plutocow Please see below; the user was verified as a longtime contributor to a variety of entries, in contrast to the person who wrote the entire page and nothing else. I've engaged honestly, politely, and in good faith, and so I think it's especially unfair for me to have been implicitly accused of tampering with the process (especially since one would have to be a moron to edit one's own page or have others do so at the very time one is bringing it to the attention of moderators). BarrettBrown (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The Bon who defended you and thought you were acting in good faith here, yes I agree with you and the vote should be changed or at the very least deleted. 2601:281:D880:DED0:7C03:54B9:98D1:F12A (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Can the BoNs reveal themselves? I'm always a little suspicious when a bunch of BoNs show up to vote in an AfD, but maybe that's just me Plutocow (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I'm suspicious too, particularly User:2601:281:d880:ded0:346c:2b6c:294c:b8d3 who appeared on the same day as BB and only edited the BB page. There's no rule against new accounts or BoNs voting on non-punishment votes, but double-voting is a no-no. Bongolian (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi hello yes, I am the BoN, both of them, That is not two separate votes that is me commenting on why I think the article should be deleted beyond the reasons I have already given. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:281:D880:DED0:2DED:15B7:15F5:C02 / talk / contribs}
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
OK BoN, I've adjusted the formatting so it shows as one vote. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't address the question of why BoN #1 appeared suddenly at the same time as BB to only critique the BB page. Bongolian (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I thought he made good points and was acting in good faith, unlike other certain people. I have been making some edits from time to time without ever making an account. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:281:D880:DED0:2DED:15B7:15F5:C02 / talk / contribs}
These you? /64 log. The last parts of this IP change often, but it's popped up shortly many times on more topics. Seems fine to me. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is me. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:281:d880:ded0:2ded:15b7:15f5:c02 / talk}
Since the "suspicious" IP seems to have been confirmed to the satisfaction of a mod to be a regular contributor to a variety of articles, I'd ask the moderator who voted "Keep" due to having believed otherwise to reconsider their vote. To be clear I would have found it suspicious too if someone appeared out of nowhere to weigh in on my page and nothing else, but since that turns out not to be the case in this instance, I'd ask that the same standard of suspicion be applied to the non-regular contributor who wrote the entire page under discussion here and literally nothing else. I think this would be especially appropriate given that no one seems to deny that the person's contributions include falsehoods and that this would seem to make them a less than sufficiently credible source for any outlet, much less this one. 86.27.113.91 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC) BarrettBrown (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva | Result: Keep, but needs improvement before being moved out of draftspace[edit]

Draft:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This draft has been rejected from mainspace several times due to being a poorly written hitpiece, and while several editors have tried to improve it User:Dropix has just been adding the problematic content back in again. This is clearly just going in circles at this point, and I feel like it would be better to just nuke it and start over again. Plutocow (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

It's just a draft, and many of our articles are hit pieces. Don't like it? Edit it. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 11:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't seem terrible. Add mentions of more positive things and it'll be more balanced. But I think the use of the few controversial Lula quotes suck, because they say so little and it is their ambiguity and gaffe-value that is the whole thing; they could be moved to a gaffe section or cut, but more can't be made out of them. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Not only keep it, but promote to mainspace where it belongs. The subject is a top important world leader who is involved in many controversies. Contrarily to what was claimed, the article is well written, covers the important events of the subject's biography beginning with his early life, and the few flaws it might have can be fixed with a little editing and sourcing. There is also a lot of room for expanding. If it sounding like a 'hit piece' is a reason for deletion, we should also delete many similar articles, starting with 'Jair Bolsonaro', which is much more aggressive towards the subject (if my personal political opinion matters, I loathe both guys). But is that even a problem, considering that RationalWiki does not follow a neutral point of view but a 'snarky' one? - Dropix (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
At least the Bolsonaro article doesn't rely on out-of-context quotes and vague assertions. Your edits have been the ones that have held back the article the most. Plutocow (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Can't really begin to tell you how much I dislike the idea of "nuke it and start over again"... And after reading through all of it, I really don't feel it even reads as a hitpiece. The only possible issue I can see is the sentence "Several controversies define Lula's second presidency.". It probably isn't true. I don't think those things currently or will define his presidency. Other than that, I feel it's just a decent article? (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Needs work, but that’s fine for a draft. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Why erase drafts? Seriously, what is it with you and constantly dragging pages to AfD that you don't like? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Foreign women | Result: Eradicated[edit]

Foreign women – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Another article written by User:Landmartian aka Nathan Larson that I somehow missed when I was purging his contributions. Apparently, Larson had a relationship with a Filipina which didn't end well, which makes parts of this article (as well as the now-deleted Mail-order bride) amusing to read. Regardless, we have the typical racist and sexist crap that comes from Larson, and while several editors have tried to improve the article it has just led to the article feeling tonally inconsistent. Furthermore, this article feels redundant to Yellow fever, which while not a great article still covers these stereotypes without all of the problematic crap in this article. In short, I think this article should be deleted and any effort would be better spent improving the Yellow fever article. Plutocow (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete this article and continue to rid this wiki of any influence of the libertarian neo-nazi pedophile. 2601:281:D880:DED0:D9D2:FF3E:D27C:1E9F (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
It is a redundant duplicate article. And we should indeed get rid of everything created by that scumbag. Spud (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
We already have Yellow fever, and anything tainted by Larson should be burnt up. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 01:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
As above. Bongolian (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

SUMKA | Result: Moved back to draftspace per creator's request[edit]

SUMKA – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

While there's probably a missional article somewhere in there, the article in its current state is just not it. It's very poorly sourced, with the main source being a Twitter thread, and the article fails to make a case for the party's greater influence and seems to mainly come from the creator's seeming obsession with Iranian fascism being potentially Zoroastrian. I wouldn't mind if someone wants to try again but the article right now is hopeless. Also, the article seems redundant with Davud Monshizadeh, which while it has many of the same problems at least is decently sourced and can be improved. Plutocow (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

User:D/List of banned users | Result: Permabanned[edit]

User:D/List of banned users – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

It's a very very bad idea of a page. This page only serves to encourage trolls. A lot of these users, who are trolls, should be forgotten in the depths of the Chicken Coop/Chicken Coop lite_{*cough* All things in moderation} archives and be an afterthought in casual discussion, not be part of a hall of notoriety. I've strictly advised against its maintenance years ago, but now I'm seeing users trying to do exactly that. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 18:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Isn't it more like a "Hall of Shame"? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobody should be editing it anyway because it's in a private user space. Any edits not made by that user should be removed.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
At the very least, this list should not be here, a hard-to-find stub of a user who abused their tech rights and was permabanned (and who ironically is not in the current list of banned users, showing the problem of irregular maintenance.) That aside, I also agree with LGM that this sort of thing feeds trolls, so I lean toward it being wiped than moved. BobJohnson (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
This is dumb, and the user who made it is long gone. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

I dunno if we need this thing specifically — we don't need to feed trolls — but we should have some resource for sysops (particularly new sysops) to be able to recognize the signs of chronically returning anti-productive users so they can be dealt with as efficiently as possible. Luigifan18 (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
That's what chicken coop archives are for. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 18:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I often find it difficult to recognize recurring banned users. This list however is no help. I don't find the coop archives useful either. A guide might help if someone is up to the task. Bongolian (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
A guide is essentially what I had in mind. Like, say, what are the patterns that indicate an account or edit being made by Ken, Kamen Rider, Mikemikemev, etc.? Luigifan18 (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Community standards says: "An editor's user page, and other pages in their user space, is their personal space and they are free to do with it what they want (with common-sense-exceptions, such as patently offensive material, copyright violations or spam)." It's in a user's space and I seriously doubt that anybody is going to find it easily. If it were a regular "article" I would vote for removal.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Ghost in the machine | Result: Merged with and redirected to dualism[edit]

Ghost in the machine – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Another pointless stub, there is nothing here that can't be explained in a single sentence on the dualism article, and since this only defines a term, there is no hope for expansion. Plutocow (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Since this is, as Plutocow said, a simple definition for a single term that can be explained in a single sentence on the dualism article, its contents can just be slipped into that article and this page can become a redirect. Luigifan18 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Merge it into dualism. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
As above. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Sure. Bongolian (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

April 2023[edit]

Category:Para-fascists | Result: Deleted[edit]

Category:Para-fascists – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This category has been abused a lot lately and right now it represents just what some users don't like. I mean. JK Rowling? George W Bush? Ayn Rand? Nikki Haley? Henry Kissinger? Henry Ford? Tulsi Gabbard? Give me a fucking break. None of these people have shown ultranationalist tendencies, most of them aren't even authoritarian. At most, they all are assholes (and we've deleted the Insufferable assholes category for a good reason). I don't think we need yet another subjective category that has been abused to the point of being useless. At best, it needs a major overhaul. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Just when it appeared that the abuse of this category was under control, it flares up again. Either the definition is way too broad and subjective, or else an editor or two believe that everyone to the right of Joe Biden is a fucking para-fascist. This category doesn't serve a useful purpose when it is diluted so much that it redundant with several other categories for right-wingers. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Admittedly, the category is somewhat tenuous. I worry that @Rational Dude in particular is going overboard with adding this category to page and also the Category:fascist to other pages. If it's a magnet for abuse, as it seems to be, then let's get rid of it. Bongolian (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete this category. If we need a parafascist category, create a "Category:Para-fascist regimes" or something, assuming we have enough content for it, and make sure it's strictly defined rather than something like "The U.S. Republican Party is passing anti-democratic laws so we should categorize the United States as para-fascist". --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 19:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

I believe that's been discussed before in Category talk:Para-fascism. Issues in that talk page applies here though and I dislike the usage of this category for similar reasons. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 17:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be a historians' term originally. Any category can be abused, but this one seems prone to it and extra inflammatory when it is — simply because it says "fascists" in it. The general point made by the proposer is taken, but Rowling is no longer in the category and Henry Ford was certainly a Nazi sympathizer (so, if anything, such a category is too soft on the guy). As for dilution of the term as applied to conservatives, I have to wonder whether that's more RW editors' fault, or the GOP's. Do they fail to meet the definition? Is the definition just too vague? Was originally leaning toward keeping it. But I have to wonder the utility of taking the issues with defining fascism itself, then making that issue worse by pushing a second even broader term. Chillpilled (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems like neo-fascism is the term that made it into Wikipedia (at least) for modern 21st century movements that incorporate some elements of fascism. The GOP is a little complicated since it is an umbrella party that includes a neo-fascist wing. Given that plenty of commentators lump the Trumpism movement into neo-fascism particularly after January 6th, it very well could be described as the dominant wing of the party at present, at least rhetorically. The alt-right often explicitly identifies with historical fascist thoughts so I think that wing of the GOP qualifies without any reservation.

I think the problem lies less with the complicated GOP situation and more with some of the people lumped in that hardly tick any "fascism" boxes. (Andrew Tate for instance is hyper-masculine and misogynistic, but that is not enough to qualify for fascism. If it was, a regrettably large amount of rock, rap, and other "young angry men" music would also be "para-fascist", which would be as ridiculous as it sounds. BobJohnson (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Antivoid/modern.css | Result: Deleted[edit]

User:Antivoid/modern.css – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This page was really just for testing CSS but I don't need it anymore Antivoid (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
It's in your personal user space so just go ahead and delete it. You don't need to do a formal request for pages in your personal space. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Robert Plomin | Result: Keep[edit]

Robert Plomin – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

stub article of very few lines and poor quality. Seems to have also been created by a troll account who made problematic edits and has had other article creations deleted. @2603:9001:300:81A:ED99:53D6:6B41:11A3 has made a complaint on talk page and requested for the article deletion Ernor (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

-> there are allegations on social media this article was written as a parody. Plomin obviously isn't "alt-right" yet that is on his category box. The opening line description is also inaccurate. Ernor (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Robert Plomin is a signatory to Mainstream Science on Intelligence, so I don't see how this is supposed to have been written as a satirical article. The line "Plomin practices racial inexplicitness, the tactic of advancing racist policies without directly mentioning race" reminds me of HBD type stuff, that's probably what it's referring to. Chillpilled (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
it's only 4 lines and if you view talk page you see constant complaints. Is it worth keeping? Ernor (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
"The article is short" and "some people aren't happy with its past versions" aren't reasons to delete it. Your opening arguments are somewhat familiar. Chillpilled (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Siding with Chillpilled. Most of the complains are from BoNs and 90% of those are always complaining about the same shit. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Aurelio J. Figueredo | Result: Keep[edit]

Aurelio J. Figueredo – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

There has been a request by an IP editor (@144.126.236.2) to remove the article, and another user raised concerns years ago on the same talk page. The article as it currently is written consists of a few lines, a quote from an news article, and two huge block quotes of paper abstracts. Ernor (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Why do we have two AFDs for the same article?!? Luigifan18 (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Edit: Come on, we literally just resolved the other one. What the hell. Luigifan18 (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Edit: Oops, the other one is three years old. I'm still inclined to agree with its consensus. Luigifan18 (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, unless there's a new and better argument for removal than before. Bongolian (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The article is too short. Unless someone adds something substantial I don't see point in keeping it. Ernor (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Pointless AfD. Plutocow (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
any other article would be deleted if it was in this condition. The article upvotes only seem to be made to antagonise the article creator who per previous Afd was being legally harassed.Ernor (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Tea Party Community | Result: Borged into Social_media_platforms as a paragraph in the "Conservative networking sites" section[edit]

Tea Party Community – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Obscure and pitiful attempt at conservatives creating a parallel universe echo chamber social media site. Organization URLs now timeout or are dead. The article has only one source, and that's to the fucking something awful forums. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The site has been dead since 2020, so it's not likely to ever be improved. Bongolian (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
It has a handful of sources on its Wikipedia page, but they're all from 2013. It's clear this never went anywhere. Chillpilled (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
🎈Deflating balloon noises.🎈 --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 01:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Ditto. Spud (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
More short-term political deadweight.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

I do think it might be worth having a mention of it in an expanded/updated/improved 'Right-wing media groups' listicle. Or perhaps feature as an entry in a new page titled 'Right-wing social media' featuring links/comments regarding Parler, GodTube and yes, that little extremist blog and so on. I think this is worth it because the amount of times right-wingers try to 'build their own bell-jars' normally get pwnd by the hallowed free market - that when it turns out, few sods actually want this stuff and thus, keep on dying with rather regular frequency. I might in fact at least start this page, in the style of the RW Wiki page unless everybody thinks it's stupid. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Second.--April ^Chat? 00:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Livingwhole.org | Result: Keep[edit]

Livingwhole.org – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This domain has new management with all new content. It is not part of a no-vaccination movement. The new site accepts vaccines are a safe way to protect against certain diseases and illness Strongwind (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
The domain Livingwhole.org is no longer owned by anti-vaxer Megan Renshaw and is now not an anti-vax organization. I'm not sure if she had an organization, really. Anyone can have a .org. But I believe she is still active in promoting anti-vax information using substack. Here is one of her latest articles. The new site does refute some of her claims, including her claim that newborns should not be given a Vitamin K shot. The new content explains why it's needed and links to CDC for more information. Strongwind (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The domain livingwhole.org is also nolonger woo or pseudoscience. The content relies on scientific studies and not testimonials and is in line with science and functional medicine accepted by major hospitals like Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic.Strongwind (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Strongwind Then edit the article to say that. Spud (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

well even if it changed doesn't mean we are going to delete the article ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Bongolian (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Depends on if this is still a relevant organization or not--April ^Chat? 04:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Suggest someone reliable do a compare/contrast between 'new' and 'old' versions, so see if claims made above true. If it is I would lean towards delete, as the thing isn't much more than a semi-stub and perhaps also an orphan page. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:"Valid" people taking L's | Result: Vaporized[edit]

Draft:"Valid" people taking L's – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Not noteworthy. Dime-a-dozen spiteful drama Twitter, nowhere near the reach of e.g. Libs of TikTok. Biggest claim to fame is allegedly getting semi-doxed. Chillpilled (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Not noteworthy, at least for an article. I think being added to Webshites would be better. Valeria22 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Another entry in the “I got mad at someone on the internet and typed this through tears” series. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Obscure Twitter drama doesn't need a page here, especially since Twitter is slowly dying and its relevance fading away. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

March 2023[edit]

Category:Murderers | Result: Murdered[edit]

Category:Murderers – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

The category is poorly defined as it is currently being used. "Murder" is not the same as "people who have killed". Killing can be 1) self-defense (not murder) 2) in war (generally not murder) or 3) manslaughter (not murder, but illegal). Bongolian (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Poorly defined, emotionally loaded. Potentially libelous (Category:Criminals has this disclaimer too). We have other better categories to saddle awful people with. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 03:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
It's for the best. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
In point of fact I can't see any great problem on the pages where it is actually being used. But something clearer would be better. "Convicted murderers" perhaps.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

The cat needs refining, not deletion. We have articles on people who have murdered, let's rewrite the cat description and then apply that description consistently. No need to throw it out. SolPyre (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
What should "have murdered" be defined by, though? It's not "have killed" or "responsible/contributed for having killed". I would prefer a "convicted of murder" or "accused of murder by a consensus of reputable organizations". But wouldn't this just ultimately fall under Category:Convicted felons? --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 04:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Donald Trump child rape cases | Result: Delete (5 in favor, 0 against)[edit]

Donald Trump child rape cases – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Talk page consensus seemed to lean towards this being potentially libelous, and that this article should be deleted. Someone moved the article out of draftspace anyways, despite what was in the talk page. BobJohnson (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
It's a poorly-conceived page, not differentiating allegations from facts, nor differentiating rape from sexual harassment. Should be deleted forthwith. Bongolian (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This looks like a hit piece and is completely inappropriate for RW. Relevant info has already been added to the main article under the "Creepy behavior" heading. And for bob's sake, the cheesecake photos of Melania were way over the top. Thank you for quickly removing them. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
AMassiveGay (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Scream!! (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Even if we don't want it as a seperate page, this information should definitely be included in the main Donald Trump page. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Not as currently written. Bongolian (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I already put the Miss Teen USA allegations in. The Epstein stuff seemed really too sketchy on closer examination, at least from my perspective. If you can find a way to work it in, fine, but I haven't seen an Epstein related lawsuit (there were three as far as I can tell) that wasn't dropped or dismissed, and articles on the lawsuits seemed to indicate multiple problems and bizarreness regarding them.

Trump did know Epstein and that is briefly mentioned in the Jeffrey Epstein page. That doesn't mean much offhand, so I don't know if this really is worthy of being put in the article. Back when Trump was "real-estate personality" he is mentioned among a host of other uber-wealthy circle people in a 2002 Vanity Fair article (that, while hinting at Epstein's young girl shenanigans, largely focuses on Epstein's considerable financial mischief.) It's not news that the uber-rich have their own social "circle", and just because you know someone doesn't mean one is complicit in their behavior. BobJohnson (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Walter Brown | Result: Deleted[edit]

Walter Brown – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Created back in 2011, this article has seen no major modifications since it's creation Special:Diff/937465/2157877. I don't think we should have completely unsourced articles about people. The article also doesn't cover creationism much, instead being all about some drama back from 2011 (I don't especially object to that being in the article, but we shouldn't base most of the article on that). Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Seems completely irrelevant. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
No citations after 12 years? Sounds like a nobody in the creation-o-sphere. Bongolian (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I prefer Walter White. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Vee^Meow? 18:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

He created hydroplate "theory", so he's missional at least. But there doesn't seem to be much to him besides that and his failure to live up to his debate challenge (which is kinda "whatever" in my eyes), and the article on hydroplate "theory" already does a decent job of debunking it (though it does need more sources), so I don't think there's much value to having the Walter Brown article around. If he's only known for his wacky global flood hypothesis, and we already have an article on said hypothesis, then it seems unnecessary to have an article on him. DietMondrian (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Don't create articles based on your own internet dramas because nobody will give a fuck in 12 years time. Spud (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
His WP page seems to have a lot more info, but honestly, the dude's 86 now and I don't see anything very recent from him online. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
a random imperialist running dog no one knows of anymore? yeah, his page can go--April ^Chat? 04:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Lets shove half the text of this article into the footnotes of Hydroplate theory and forget the rest. SolPyre (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Per above. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Q-Ray | Result: Keep[edit]

Q-Ray – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

it barely got any major edits in like 8 years Edward the eight (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

The article is stubby, but people are still buying this garbage.[19] Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like an alternative medicine thing that people need to be warned about. This article is missional. Luigifan18 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Still relevant. Improve rather than delete. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Per above. Plutocow (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Just expand the article. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Needs expansion but it is missional and should be preserved. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
As others have said - if it's on/mission then expand it. Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Just expand it--April ^Chat? 04:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Template:User Kanye | Result: Speedily deleted[edit]

Template:User Kanye – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Probably not a good idea to have a userbox for Ye fans. Spud (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Candidate for speedy deletion. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. 14:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Recommend substituting this template on Armed Roombas user page (only user with this userbox) to avoid littering their userpage with dead links while still keeping their intention intact. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

And done. Spud (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Megan Fox | Result: Deleted because nobody came to its defense after 2 weeks[edit]

Megan Fox – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This person seems to be a completely irrelevant. Apparently this is her youtube channel [20], it has only 150k subscribers. All the videos linked on the article are private and a few of the other links are also dead. Also, much from the information I could find about here elsewhere on the Internet came from our very own article. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Dead channel, little of interest, also a YouTuber.Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano ^{Make a Reservation} 03:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
✻ Sigh ✻ Another youtuber who's faded into obscurity. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The subject of this article is a complete nobody. As was said back in 2014, this page just exists to say, "Look at this stupid creationist woman. Isn't she stupid?" More than half of the page is about how she wasn't happy about people watching internet porn on computers at her local public library. I wouldn't be happy about that either. She may have complained in the wrong way, but I think she was right to complain. And yes, only two of the links in the references now go to the pages they're meant to, which makes the claims unverifiable. `Spud (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

I will point out that in the Great YouTube Purge of 2018, it was decided that YouTubers had to have at least 1,000 subscribers to have articles here. So Megan Fox meets that criteria 150 times over. Spud (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023[edit]

Argument from marginal cases | Result: Completely marginalized[edit]

Argument from marginal cases – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

I don't really think that we should have an article that says severely disabled people are comparable to animals. Even beyond that, this article is messy, confusing, and poorly sourced, and numerous others have pointed out these problems on the talk page. The article is irredeemable in its current state and if another article were to be made on the topic it would be best to start from scratch. Plutocow (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Cursory look at it supports Pluto's case. Besides the dig at disabled people, I saw three references. IIRC someone deleted some more meandering portions a little bit ago but it's best to kill it with fire and start anew. Vee (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Agree with the points above, hasn’t been properly worked on since 2019, poorly sourced and seems like a confusing mess.-WMS (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
This is a prominent anti-speciesist argument, but the presentation in this article is inadequately precise. Enough work would need to be done that starting from scratch would likely be comparable. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Morgan Freeman | Result: The page is with God now. Or rather, it isn't anymore.[edit]

Morgan Freeman – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Do we really need this? Yes, I know he was famous for playing God in one movie, but that's honestly a weak reason to have this redirect to God. Plutocow (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Just delete it. It's only a a redirect; I don't think it needs a vote. Bongolian (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Bogolian was right. I've deleted it. Spud (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

It’s a redirect. Who cares either way? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm with the Chef on this. Vee (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Holocene Extinction | Result: Moved back to draftspace[edit]

Holocene Extinction – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This article should have never been moved from draftspace, as it's just really bad and misleading in its current state. Firstly, the article uncritically promotes the "humans caused extinction of Pleistocene megafauna" hypothesis, something that has been called into serious question by more recent research ([21], [22], [23], etc.). Furthermore, the article is full of lists that don't even provide any information. This article is woefully incomplete and misleading and a good article on the topic would have to start from scratch. Plutocow (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete but move back to draft space. Vee (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
It has Just Nine references with a lot of the page being lists ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete or move back to draft. Bongolian (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Return to draft. Not all of the references in the article are great; 2 is written by a birdwatcher who also has articles on zoology, history, languages, and psychology for the site (why not go back to his sources?), 7 redirects me to the website homepage, and while the source for the sentence "Plankton and soil mesofauna/microfauna are also threatened by human activity, as toxic materials that leak into their environments spell disastrous results for them" looks to be a journal, searching the article for the terms "toxic" and "disastrous" returned no results, while a search for "human" gave 1 result: "the structure of the soil communities strongly depends not only on the natural soil forming factors but also on human activities (agriculture, forestry, urbanization) and determines the shape of our landscapes, in terms of healthy or contaminated, pristine or degraded soils", which does not seem to support our article's claim (maybe there's more to it, but I don't have time to read the whole thing through). Altogether does paint a picture of incomplete or misleading. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Send it back to draft and let it ferment for a while. It has potential but needs a lot of work. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Return it to draft space or improve it.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

I'm not sure... I'm usually against sending problematic articles back to draft space or essay space, but since the author of this one is still active and the subject is really important to our mission, I think we might give them a chance to work on this one before deleting the whole thing. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
i think this article might be worth something. it just needs to be fixed. you don't necessarily need to move it to draft space to do that. The G (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Liberal deceit | Result: Deleted[edit]

Liberal deceit – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Are we really going to assume that there's no alternative to liberalism? I don't think there is, but I don't believe that the Wiki should officialy state this either. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Seems like a remnant from a more Conservapedia-focused time. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 17:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, we shouldn't pollute the wiki with conservapedia buzzwords. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, there is no alternative to liberalism. Submit or die. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 21:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Vee (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The G (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Minnesota Forward | Result: Baleeted[edit]

Minnesota Forward – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Defunct, obscure political action group relevant to Minnesota politics in 2010, and apparently nowhere since then. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Nothing interesting here. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Meh. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 20:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Category:Centrist stupidity – (View AfD)

Category:Centrist stupidity | Result: Half was put in a blender, the other half died on its own[edit]

Delete[edit]

This category is stupid and doesn't serve the interests of the wiki. Contributors appear to use arbitrary opinions when assigning a topic to this category based on their personal beliefs, like the (thankfully) deleted moonbatery and wingnuttery categories. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 03:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 04:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Bongolian (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
See talk page. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 07:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
its dogshit AMassiveGay (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Spud (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
For the redundant title if nothing else.-Flandres (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Rude. GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
you think centrism is stupid just because you don't agree with it? lol k. The G (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Vee (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
not sure why we haven't deleted this yet. The G (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Oh, the moonbatery and wingnuttery cats are gone?... Huh. I am experiencing a feeling about this but I don't know what it is. SolPyre (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
End of an era. 😔 --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 20:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
yeah, i kinda miss them too, but it's for the best. they're more trouble than they're worth. The G (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Can we delete this now? Vee (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I usually wait a week or so of AfD just to make sure everyone gets at least a degree of chance to comment on this. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 20:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

People's Quantitative Easing | Result: Deleted[edit]

People's Quantitative Easing – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

PQE has been dead for almost a decade and the article does IMO does a very poor job explaining why it would be good, not having any peer reviewd source and mentioning Krugman saying that inflation is good (not exactly what he said but whatever). GeeJayK ^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Very tenuously missional and not done well. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Hardly anything here. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Argumentation is poor and article is confusing. Easy delete. Plutocow (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

January 2023[edit]

Perverted Justice | Result: Deleted[edit]

Perverted Justice – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

More of an angry rant than any sort of actual discussion about what it is. Should be burned, salted and rewritten — Ace McWicked
This article's criticisms of Perverted Justice are pretty shallow and seem to rely mostly on tone argument. For example, when describing PJ's counterclaim to the argument that the pedophiles they are target are not committing crimes because there is no actual minor present, it focuses mostly on PJ telling people who disagree to go away, with a offhand remark that the rebuttal is a "deeply flawed legal analogy". How is flawed? Is the underlying logic unsound? Have there been cases that show this argument does not work in court? We're RationalWiki here, we ought to be explaining why something is flawed! But instead, the article fails to comment on this further and goes on to criticize PJ for calling people stupid. DietMondrian (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
This article sucks. I wouldn’t even support remaking it. Just delete and forget. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 07:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Problems as noted above, plus WP does a substantially better job on this organization's problems. Bongolian (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Not relevant anymore, this organization seems defunct--April ^Chat? 18:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Sexual revolution caused incels hypothesis | Result: Deleted, but not before a ban evader just had to defend it[edit]

Sexual revolution caused incels hypothesis – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

This reads more like an essay than a mainspace article, and it was created by a banned editor who tried to promote his wiki and whitewash incels. This perspective is obvious looking through the article, as it conflates many different things and doesn't really address the misogyny that defines incels. Normally I'd be fine with moving stuff like this to essayspace, but since the user is banned and probably had ulterior motives writing that article it should be deleted. Plutocow (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
So niche it renders it completely fucking worthless. Ace ⁱ⁹ 08:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Strange article from a strange banned editor. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Ick. While this article does have some interesting points, overall it is a mess and beyond redemption. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

posted the reasons for keeping on talk of the page. Also looks like DuceMussolini was the one who decided, agreed, or encouraged to take this out of draft, judging by the talk page 212.102.36.251 (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Neil. Plutocow (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Is this a claim which is, in fact, frequently made? Or is it a straw man?

If it is a common claim, then I guess refuting it would be worthwhile; but if it's largely been invented so that an editor can grind their particular axe then we don't need it.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective, it's not a direct topic per se. The sexual revolution does seem to be used some, as this Outline article describes, as a genesis for their "Chad and Stacy" style mythology. However, as the Outline article mentions, it is not the only supposed "root cause". And the surface level arguments are a bunch of malarkey at any rate. If sex really was the problem, the "world's oldest profession" has an answer. A lot of the incel mythos is just an extension of misogyny, typical conservative "good old days" wishing, deep social conservatism, and cartoonish morality. I mean, the top quote is in relation to Jordan Peterson wailing for a desire for "enforced monogamy" as a solution to the problem. If that isn't "turn back the clock" wishful thinking, I don't know what is. (It's clear these folks haven't looked at cultures which do have arranged marriage too deeply.)

You can see this in one place I did find this directly mentioned, a quote from OANN host Kara McKinney. Apparently if an incel man doesn't get the sex, according to her, the incel man turns to porn, alcohol, drugs, and mass shootings, and it's the sexual revolution's fault for the incel man not getting the sex. Too bad it isn't the 1980s anymore, elsewise she could have added heavy metal and Dungeons and Dragons. It's a ridiculous argument.

The problem I see is the article is a mess. For instance, one of the quotes (the Ross Douthat column here) really refers to this blog entry from the weird mind of Robin Hanson, who isn't an incel but has occasionally made some really weird statements concerning sex (as noted in the RW article). Several of the non-sourced quotes I could not verify.

I actually don't think this essay (it's not an article) is *complete* bunk, it is decent at bringing up some bad points from the incel universe about how whacked out their mythos is (however, I don't think it's that important to go too deep in that universe, personally). The biggest fallacy I see in this essay is that somehow "unmarried / not having sex = incel". This dumb comparison is brought up frequently and is completely garbage logic. BobJohnson (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Ross is a conservative NYTimes columnist who was vaguely arguing for "redistribution of sex", based on Hanson's reasoning yes. As far as 1800s celibacy in the USA, if you were unmarried, you were for the most part not socially allowed to have sex. Involuntary sexual abstinence is not a hard concept to understand and of course applies to social pressures. As far as that not being a proper definition of incel, rationalwiki has no idea what to define incel as, as everytime it is pressed on the talk page of incel, they keep changing the definition. First it was self-identified people, then it wasn't, then it was weasel words like subculture (defining PSL culture as incel or something, even though PSL forums never self-identified as such). Turns out when you appropriate a word it can be whatever you want it to be. 212.102.36.251 (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources for those quotes can be easily dug up, but this page is being deleted because an IP pointed out that plutcow was likely a bigot on the topic of sexual disability, so they're being a child 212.102.36.251 (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'm late to the party, but AFAICT this is actually as big as you could get. Sure, they aren't so explicit about it (and elevating this to the status of "hypothesis" and "[legit] sociology" was quite the BS), but insofar as incels are reactionaries this seems the fundamental grievance that everybody moans about. Though I'd argue it's a bit more specific to the increased egalitarianism/feminism that ensued the sexual liberation, rather than the way sex is perceived itself.
And this doesn't look any different from what "non-racialist racists" would tell themselves to still maintain a facade of moral high ground: it's not that they want to deprive anybody's rights.. but the others trying to infringe on their god-given privilege. --Mirh (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Anarcho-crapitalism | Result: Deleted[edit]

Draft:Anarcho-crapitalism – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

never got edits until nine months ago even then it never got edits since.Edward the eight (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
We already have anarcho-capitalism, so what's the point? Plutocow (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
The term appears to be a joke dreamed up by some editors. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was a duplicate. Sure, kill it.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

~~It's just a draft. Ì can't see it doing any harm. If someone comes along who wants to breathe life into it's there for them.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)~~

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Prior to being moved from funspace to draftspace and then having its content replaced with a single sentence, the article looked like this. Christopher (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is much of an improvement. (I mean, is Bertistan a reference to something? All I could find was that it was the transliteration of Balochistan into Japanese). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The Vigilant Christian | Result: Keep[edit]

The Vigilant Christian – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Way too many dead links. 3500 jaar (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

At least some of the links would be findable through archive.org, and could be replaced if someone spent the effort. Worth keeping. Bongolian (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
That's not a valid reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario! 19:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
That's an absurd reason to propose deletion. If an editor is disturbed by dead links then they should update them: not propose the article for deletion.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Spud (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Plutocow (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2023

December 2023[edit]

Louis Althusser | Result: Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

SodaHead.com | Result: Deleted[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Essay:Good and Hawt! | Result: Cremated[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Jevons paradox | Result: Noclipped out of reality and into the backrooms[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Trees cause pollution | Result: Grafted[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Cop Block | Result: Beaten with a truncheon[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

November 2023[edit]

Collectivism | Result: Assimilated. Resistance is futile[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Category:Extremism | Result: Suppressed with overwhelming force[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Mark Begich | Result: Consigned to obscurity[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Fractal wrongness | Result: Keep[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

October 2023[edit]

RageAfterStorm | Result: No consenus after 10 days[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Republican Faith (blog) | Result: As dead as the blog itself[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Bi/pan lesbian exclusionism | Result: Word re-re-defined[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

September 2023[edit]

Evolutionary ethics | Result: Hume decisively beats Darwin 5-1.[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Maoist Rebel News | Result: not particularly worthy of archiving[edit]

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]