RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2023

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

May 2023[edit]

Catharine MacKinnon | Result: Exterminated[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. It's also frequently citing book reviews rather than the books themselves. Bongolian (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. 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)
  4. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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
  2. 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: SigButt.png 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]

  1. Missional; improve not remove. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. 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: SigButt.png 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. It's just a draft, and many of our articles are hit pieces. Don't like it? Edit it. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. Not only keep it, but promote to mainspace where it belongs. The subject is a top important world leader which 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', who 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)
  4. 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)
  5. Needs work, but that’s fine for a draft. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  6. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. We already have Yellow fever, and anything tainted by Larson should be burnt up. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  5. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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)
  2. 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)
  3. This is dumb, and the user who made it is long gone. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 04:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. 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, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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)
  2. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. Merge it into dualism. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. As above. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Sure. Bongolian (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

April 2023[edit]

Catharine MacKinnon | Result: Exterminated[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. It's also frequently citing book reviews rather than the books themselves. Bongolian (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. 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)
  4. 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]

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

Category:Para-fascists (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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-fascismWikipedia 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. This page was really just for testing CSS but I don't need it anymore Antivoid (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. Robert Plomin is a signatory to Mainstream Science on IntelligenceWikipedia, 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)
  2. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. The site has been dead since 2020, so it's not likely to ever be improved. Bongolian (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. 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)
  4. 🎈Deflating balloon noises.🎈 --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
  5. Ditto. Spud (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
  6. More short-term political deadweight.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. Second.--April Chat? 00:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Livingwhole.org | Result: Keep[edit]

Livingwhole.org (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. Bongolian (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. Depends on if this is still a relevant organization or not--April Chat? 04:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. Not noteworthy, at least for an article. I think being added to Webshites would be better. Valeria22 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  3. Another entry in the “I got mad at someone on the internet and typed this through tears” series. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  4. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
  3. It's for the best. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
  4. 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]

  1. 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, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  5. Scream!! (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. Seems completely irrelevant. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  3. No citations after 12 years? Sounds like a nobody in the creation-o-sphere. Bongolian (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  4. I prefer Walter White. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  5. Kill it with Scorpio.gif VeeMeow? 18:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  6. 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)
  7. 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)
  8. His WP pageWikipedia 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)
  9. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. Per above. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Q-Ray | Result: Keep[edit]

Q-Ray (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

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

Keep[edit]

  1. The article is stubby, but people are still buying this garbage.[1] Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. Still relevant. Improve rather than delete. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  4. Per above. Plutocow (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  5. Just expand the article. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  6. Needs expansion but it is missional and should be preserved. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  7. 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)
  8. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Probably not a good idea to have a userbox for Ye fans. Spud (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  3. 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]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. This person seems to be a completely irrelevant. Apparently this is her youtube channel [2], 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. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 02:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. Dead channel, little of interest, also a YouTuber.Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. ✻ Sigh ✻ Another youtuber who's faded into obscurity. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
  4. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. Bogolian was right. I've deleted it. Spud (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. It’s a redirect. Who cares either way? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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 ([3], [4], [5], 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)
  2. Delete but move back to draft space. Vee (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. It has Just Nine references with a lot of the page being lists ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  4. Delete or move back to draft. Bongolian (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. 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]

  1. 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]

  1. 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. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. Seems like a remnant from a more Conservapedia-focused time. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 17:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. Yes, we shouldn't pollute the wiki with conservapedia buzzwords. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  4. Yes, there is no alternative to liberalism. Submit or die. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  5. Vee (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  6. The G (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Minnesota Forward | Result: Baleeted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. Nothing interesting here. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. Meh. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

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

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

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 04:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. Bongolian (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  4. See talk page. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 07:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  5. its dogshit AMassiveGay (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  6. Spud (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  7. For the redundant title if nothing else.-Flandres (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
    Rude. GeeJayKWhere 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)
  8. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  9. Vee (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  10. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  11. 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]

  1. 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, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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)
  2. 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, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

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

People's Quantitative Easing (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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). GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. Very tenuously missional and not done well. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. Hardly anything here. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  4. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. More of an angry rant than any sort of actual discussion about what it is. Should be burned, salted and rewritten — Ace McWicked
  2. 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)
  3. This article sucks. I wouldn’t even support remaking it. Just delete and forget. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 07:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Problems as noted above, plus WP does a substantially better job on this organization's problems. Bongolian (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. 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 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. So niche it renders it completely fucking worthless. Acei9 08:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Strange article from a strange banned editor. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. 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]

  1. 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)

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

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

Delete[edit]

  1. never got edits until nine months ago even then it never got edits since.Edward the eight (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. We already have anarcho-capitalism, so what's the point? Plutocow (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. The term appears to be a joke dreamed up by some editors. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. 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]

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

Delete[edit]

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

Keep[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. That's not a valid reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. 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)
  4. Agreed. Spud (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Plutocow (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]