RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2025

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

September 2025[edit]

Ancient Astronauts | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Avionfoudingue (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. I don't see a reason to delete this. The deletion notice says the page "links to nothing", but it does link to Ancient astronauts 66.99.128.137 (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Unneeded redirects don't need to go through AfD Plutocow (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Samantha Bee | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Not particularly missional. A 150-word stub that has barely changed since the day it was written. From glancing at her WP article, Samantha Bee doesn't appear to have done anything notable since her show wad cancelled in 2022. Christopher (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  2. Bongolian (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  3. Doesn't appear to be missional at all. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  4. Flandres (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

August 2025[edit]

Heritage Party | Result: Keep[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. A vote on behalf of @RWRW, who deleted it with no reason or explanation provided. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. As the creator, feel it is both missional and quality. The party/Kurten are right-wing cranks, I found a clutch of decent sources on it and spent time reading their own site etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  2. The article is definitely on-mission and of decent quality. I no reason to delete it. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  3. A very minor party that doesn't seem to even win local elections, thus that could be a reason to delete it. But, they are still active so potentially missional Hope isnt lost (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
    Their very minor-ness is more reason for RW to cover it - because there isn't any other really decent takedown of them than this online. As I pointed out in the article, the party is basically a David Kurten vanity project so this article is basically a 'two for one' situation. WP does consider both party and man to meet their notability guidelines. If we are going on the category of 'too small', I will submit Christian Peoples Alliance for an AfD due to being equally as minor. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
    I like writing about fringe parties just as much as you do, but if they can't even win a local election and don't have a history of winning any local elections, I can at least see an argument for deletion. Sometimes all it takes to win a single local election is to just run in race where there's no one running or some other technicality. All that withstanding, it is in the spirit of the mission so nothing really that problematic here Hope isnt lost (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
    As it was only founded in 2020, there's not been a lot of time for it to organise. Plus, it is important to have an article on this because there is some grounds to suspect Farage finds Kurten a useful idiot because Heritage makes Reform look 'saner' in comparison [a same niche filled by Reclaim]. He also turns up in places like GBeebies et al so over time more crosslinks will appear [mainly as I create/update the coverage]. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  4. Some sysop deleted the article, refused to explain why. Until they explain why I see zero reason to get rid of the article. PLMMJ (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  5. It's far from the only minor party that doesn't win elections where we have page for them. Bongolian (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. There was no need to waste everyone's time with a message on RWRW's talkpage and an AfD - it was obviously just a misclick. Christopher (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

July 2025[edit]

Angry White Dude | Result: Speedily deleted by unanimous consent[edit]

Angry White Dude (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Stereotypical internet bullshit blogger, gone from the internet since 2017. Stub article unlikely to ever be expanded. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  2. Christopher (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  3. Bongolian (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  4. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  5. Why noit have an article about my crazy aunt and the shit she posts on Facebook? She's just as influential as this arsehole was. Delete. Spud (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  6. Never brough anything new to the site in the first place, just the same old tripe I swim through daily. And there's red links and pointless pop culture references too? Delete. PLMMJ (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Hive mind | Result: Moved to draftspace[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Silly nerd trivia. Seriously, what is the point of this garbage? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  2. I agree. Spud (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. It is silly nerd trivia but the Fun namespace contains decent amounts of silly nerd trivia alongside other stupid stuff. Alternatively could change the normal namespace version to conspiracy theories related to hive minds (if someone finds one, none are coming to mind that are specifically hive minds and not "collective consciousness" woo) and have the fun version be silly nerd trivia. PLMMJ (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  2. I kind of feel that something could be made of it, though I am honestly not sure what. I would agree with sending it to fun.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Draft it. It could be missional (I'm sure there's enough related woo and political undercurrents), but would require a complete rewrite to actually focus on things related to RW. If it's a draft, there'll be time to trim the excess and add more relevant information. If that doesn't happen, it'll still be out of the mainspace.      – Regards, Avarice 23:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  2. Yes, move it to draft space. Potentially missional, but in its current state requires a rewrite. I hate bullet lists. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  3. Antares (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. @Avarice, Cosmikdebris, and Antares I understand the whole "improve, don't delete"philosophy, but the article was created in 2008. No one ever improved it, and if someone ever does, it won't resemble the current article, so I don't think this works even as a draft. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but as it stands, we recognize that the article needs to be rewritten and are willing to help accommodate that. Does that mean that the article will actually stop being trash? No. But if there's a big "Deleted by AfD" at the top of a blank page, it's definitely never going to pop up again as an article. It's probably still best to risk it languishing in Draftspace than guarantee it dying forever. That being said, if it becomes abundantly clear that nobody's going to fix it, I would be less opposed to deletion.      – Regards, Avarice 15:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
  1. I can see the RW-relevant kernel here. People frequently use "hive mind" to say their opponents are an interchangeable mob, also carrying the implications they are controlled by an outside force and/or not capable of full human thought. (It's like a classier version of saying the guy you are arguing with is an NPC.) It is also frequently used by writers to create dehumanized caricatures of societies they do not like. I put "Goat" instead of "merge/redirect" because I am not sure what I would like this to be merged into and I don't know if anyone could make a full article about it. I might change this to "merge into draftspace" though.-Flandres (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Anthroscape | Result: Scraped away[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Hi, the original vote (many years ago) had no consensus and only 3 voters so I have re-created an AfD for the article. Anthroscape was closed down in 2018 (it has not returned) and all that remains is an archive of the forum on the Internet Archive. The current article as it stands is only 4 lines. Furthermore, the quote at beginning of article no longer has a source (the forum has long been deleted). Looking at the previous AfD, it was alleged Michael Coombs was the article creator as @CharlieBass. The evidence for this is - Coombs impersonated Bass on MootSF many years ago (an archived thread of him pretending to be other people can be found here, while his main account was also suspended). MootSF was a short-lived (2014-2015) anti-racist forum critical of Stormfront. Bass, is an African-American man who used to post there alongside another African-American named EgalitarianJay (aka Morpheus). Coombs had a penchant for impersonating Bass and EgalitarianJay and was banned multiple times on MootSF for creating fake troll accounts. Coombs was also banned in 2014 on Anthroscape, and prior to his ban, received temporary suspensions. So the timing when the Anthroscape article was created by the account @CharlieBass, in 2014, also fits Coomb's behaviour and MO. He created the article to blame on Bass because he was temporarily suspended and kicked off the forum. Coombs also had a bone to pick with Anthroscape's moderator, Crimson Guard (who kept suspending him before ultimately banning his account). The Anthroscape article was set up to attack CG and I suspect Coombs later edited the same article as the sockpuppet @Batman who only made a single (reverted) edit: "Crimson Guard is of Italian heritage and overweight" (Coombs also called CG a "fat Italian" on Anthroscape). There is further strong evidence Coombs edited the article on another sockpuppet: @Mascara. They only made one edit but the name "Mascara" is significant. Coombs was specifically banned from Anthroscape for posting misogynistic comments about women and mascara/make up (see here for the comment that got him banned in a thread he made titled: "How much paint do you slap on your face to look good when you don't?"). Finally, if you looks at Coombs' main account on Anthroscape prior to his suspension you will curiously see how he described his politics, "Far-left". This is despite the fact he is a known neo-Nazi, Holocaust denier and far-right activist (as documented on his article). So the fact the @CharlieBass described their politics as left-wing and anti-racist is not unexpected for him. He literally toys around with these fake personas and impersonations (note he was banned on MootSF for impersonating an anti-racist as well. Overall, I would argue for deletion of the article for the following reasons (1) the forum was deleted 7 years ago, (2) the article is a stub and (3) the article was very likely created by Michael Coombs impersonating someone else who is a banned editor. 38.248.90.84 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  2. Delete. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  3. Delete because it tells us virtually nothing about a website which no longer exists. Who created it is wholly irrelevant.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  4. Bob's right. It doesn't matter if an article was created by Michael Coombs, Rob Smith, Ken DeMyer or Buzz Aldrin. But this is a shite article about a webshite nobody gives a shite about anymore. Spud (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  5. No way to make the stub grow. Author irrelevant.      – Regards, Avarice 01:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

Following from my comment I would like to add the following. The account @CharlieBass' only other edit(s) was on Talk:Hbdchick. Now, that article (which later became a redirect to racialism) was created by a user named @Moxie14 in 2014 (Bass left comments on its talk not long after it was created). I believe that Moxie14 was none other than Coombs again on a troll account which a sysop here suspected many years ago. Moxie14 contains 14 as a digit, a reference to the Fourteen Words white nationalists use. Secondly, that account was a blatant parody mocking an anti-racist. As an example, read how Moxie14 described Steve Sailer (they also created the Sailer and Gregory Cochran article):

Steve Sailer is a hardcore anti-Semite, racist, misogynist, white supremacist, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe and all-round champion bigot who can arguably be (dis)credited as the godfather of pseudo-scientific on-line hate. If it's foul, fetid and attempts to give itself a biological and/or intellectual veneer, then Sailer will have had a hand in it somewhere, trust me.

Many years ago, a sysop @ZooGuard appears to have realised Moxie14 was a troll account (further that Bass was likely a sock of Moxie14) and not genuine but no one followed up with their suspicions (see for example their comment here). Can anyone take the above paragraph serious? Poe's Law. Credit should also be given to @GeeJayK who realised: "The drop of accusations in the opening line of this article is really problematic. It's not sourced nor covered during the article and it "does look like a parody. I didn't check the fossil record, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually written by a troll." 38.248.90.84 (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

You pointed to the wrong section. Correct attribution is here. It's about a different page, anyway.      – Regards, Avarice 01:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

June 2025[edit]

Republic Standard | Result: Fallen[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Website is dead and doesn't seem to have been very relevant, with googling "Republic Standard" giving no non-RW results that are related to this website. All this might be excusable if it was interesting or unique, but based on this stub it was just a boring standard white nationalist website. Plutocow (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  2. A decent rule of thumb-if an article subject is so poorly attested offsite that you could credibly-note I said *credibly*, not accurately-argue RW made it up, we don't need an article on it.-Flandres (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  3. Can there be any doubt? Scream!! (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  4. If it's dead, there's no way to grow the article.      – Regards, Avarice 19:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  5. Antares (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  6. Kill it with Scorpio.gifcosmikdebris talk stalk 21:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Category:Conservative liberalism | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. We already have a category for this, category:liberal conservatism (and category: classical liberalism to some extent).Yes, one may argue that these are different things, but I don't think we need these three categories. Categories are useful when we want to find an article or study a certain subject, this one is just confusing. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC) GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  2. Redundant. Antares (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  3. -Flandres (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism (right-liberalism) are distinct concepts in Europe. What doesn't distinguish between the two is what doesn't distinguish between social liberalism and liberal socialism. Raymond Aron is a right-liberal, but unlike Charles de Gaulle, he is not a conservative. (Aaron opposed socialism but was also somewhat critical of Gaullism.) Umaru16 (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  2. Per what Umaru said. Chillpilled (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC) Really. Chillpilled (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. Not educated enough on the topic to vote. I'd be tempted to say this belongs in RationalWiki:Duplicate articles, but no one pays attention to that.
    Regards, Avarice   18:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Category: Anti-LGBT bigots | Result: Keep[edit]

Category: Anti-LGBT bigots (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. The problem with this category is that it’s supposed to be part of a “super category” to Homophobes and Transphobes, but it’s confusingly listed with both categories on several pages. Because of this, I feel this category is redundant with the Homophobes and Transphobes categories. 2607:FB90:D503:1CA5:710E:2A94:E9F:15EC (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Keep but adjust to meta-category as it should be. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  2. Definitely keep it, but remove it from the articles where it's superfluous. Don't see a problem with leaving it on the rare (non-category) beast that qualifies without homo- or transphobia.
    Regards, Avarice Hooray for word salad 01:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  3. Antares (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  4. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  5. As per above. Bongolian (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Peter Frost | Result: Deleted by board[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Minimal sourcing, notably a critical article (5 years old) in Pharos but little else. Is mainly known for the sexual selection pigmentation hypothesis. While this is a fringe viewpoint among scientists it is certainly not pseudoscience. He wrote a 2023 article on cuckoldry but I am not sure why that is relevant (nevertheless it is mentioned). Not much else. He owns a crummy Substack. I vote to delete. Remains unclear why he got an article in the first place. 98.98.66.9 (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC) 98.98.66.9 (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep in mind that RW does not have a notability policy.
Regards, Avarice   23:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Missional, and we have plenty of stubs. Why focus on this one? If we end up having to settle, then we have to settle, but that's no reason to chop it now.
    Regards, Avarice   23:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    Who is "we"? You're a recent suspicious account (created in Feb 2025 but act as if you are running this place...) and there is evidence to suggest you are a sockpuppet of @Ex-BoN Lurker. Very similar writing style (also your page states: "Mostly a lurker, but an account seemed like a good idea.") while User:Ex-BoN Lurker: "I'm here to read and ponder about articles lurk, and clean up typos, and undo naughty edits"), you were the only account who showed up to defend Ex-BoN Lurker, while your editing patterns and fixation with keeping HBD articles up is identical. I don't think you are a good faith account. Unfortunately, there's virtually no moderation on this wiki anymore to prevent infiltration. 38.248.90.132 (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    We being RationalWiki, here. AFAIK I have never defended Lurker, but instead pointed out that a flurry of IPs wasn't exactly making good arguments against them. And I have no fascination with keeping HBD articles, as much as I see no reason to delete them. Also keep in mind that you are not being agreed with in your criticisms of our HBD articles and some random user so much as you are being ignored. Have a nice day!
    Regards, Avarice   14:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  2. BoN bullies should have no say in what articles to delete. BobJohnson (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. shouldn't 'Articles for deletion' be a Sysop only privilege? BONs have taken to using it a lot methinks. Scream!! (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  2. I don't know. The guy seems to be missional, but the article is shit and I doubt that someone will be interested at improving it soon. The armchair PTSD diagnosis and the cuckoldry section should be deleted though. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    My first impression is that this person's "worth", if anything, peaked in the mid 2000s-early 2010s. Still a little active nowadays in Substack / Blogspot but no one seems to notice. Seems to be associated with folks like Steve Sailer, Hbdchick (who is both no longer active and no longer has a main article), and the like. He had a Wikipedia article at one point, but it was deleted in 2014, because he wasn't notable at all.
    I'm kind of neutral on this, because it's a minor figure of 2010s crank Internet, that probably has an article because RW is all about the crank of 2010s Internet. Rather than a hard delete, this article could be merged into the racialism article, which is where Hbdchick eventually went. But BoN fuckers shouldn't be able to push this sort of shit, there's far worse articles out there to clean up. :p BobJohnson (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
(a) The article is almost a stub and awful. (b) It was created by a banned editor. (c) It's a troll-magnet. I am not sure why it isn't removed. If it was about a person not writing about HBD it would have been deleted already but suspiciously in the last few months since this wiki has had legal issues, new accounts have appeared (some promoted to sysop status) who fixate with HBD and always vote to keep these articles. Who are these people? Why did they show up at this time, and always vote no to delete? 208.115.193.120 (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't fucking matter if it was created by a banned editor. Please stop using that as a reason for deletion. And you're hardly in a position to talk about suspicious users, BoN. Spud (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
But, the banned editor was banned . . . by a banned editor! Shock! Horror! Confusion in the streets!
Regards, Avarice   13:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, BoN, you realize that you are part of the problem, right? Despite the poor state of the article, given obvious attempts by the Hbd community to bring this Wiki down, my response for now is "fuck off, twat!" and just hold steady until certain figures stop behaving like total dickwads. I don't give bullies what they want. BobJohnson (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  1. Shouldn't this be deleted? Not confident enough to do it myself. @DuceMoosolini, Plutocow, and Christopher
    Regards, Avarice   19:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    I didn't get your ping, and neither will Plutocow or Duce, because you have a signature template.
    I know no more than you about the ongoing legal issues, I'm not on the board. Presumably Duce would have already deleted this afd if it needed to go. Christopher (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    re:Ping: right, I keep forgetting. Either way, I only (attempted to) ping based on who was actively deleting, not who would have any certain idea about what to delete. Thanks for the effort, at least.
    Regards, Avarice   20:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think it matters right now. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Intelligence (journal) | Result: Keep[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. The publisher of this journal was deleted and all is left is a stub. Most authors who published in this journal have also been removed and cannot be named (view the article history). 67.205.160.135 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    I am sick and tired of rando BoNs making AfD proposals. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    Me too. Scream!! (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Suspicious Bon. A somebody. (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    Not a reason to keep. It's an utter crappy article and if the Linden page is removed, only Lynn and Edward Miller will be mentioned as authors who published in the journal. 134.209.215.176 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    That's a terrible reason to vote keep. You could make a good case for discounting the BoN's vote in the event of a tie. Christopher (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    IMHO BoNs should not be able to start, or vote on, AfDs. I think it's terrible that they are allowed to start them in the first place. At least in the current system, which is vote based. The current system is so easy to brigade and manipulate. I would reconsider this if it the system was more like Wikipedia, and ultimately an administrator makes the deletion decisions based on discussion quality.
    Aside from that, it seems that we have someone willing to improve the article after legalities are taken care of, so I would hold off deleting. The Richard Lynn / Intelligence connection alone I think is worth exploring on his own, since Lynn's white nationalism was so egregious and the methodology of many of his papers so PIDOOMA. It casted a shadow on any legitimate research promoted by that magazine. If the magazine now repudiates these articles (I know there was a campaign for them and others to do so), that too is notable. BobJohnson (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  2. In fact Intelligence has a whole new board and has turned away from race pseudoscience so it definitely should remain - and I plan to update it as soon as the transition to the new Oregon Rational Wiki is complete. Pinkerite (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  3. Antares (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  4. BobJohnson (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  5. Bongolian (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Make the article a draft, since Pinkerite intends to rewrite it soon. Chillpilled (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

𓃶
Pinkerite (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

House of Commons | Result: Merged[edit]

House of Commons (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Is crappy semi-stub which isn't either missional or really needed. Our efforts should be concentrated on more worthy articles. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. 'noted MPs' - david trednnick. expenses scandal where we even say people were convicted, jacqui smith was not one of them, and not even one of the most egregious of the legal but frivilous expense claims (duck house anyone?). i said on the lords afd, strange choices. or other wise dross that we hamstring ourselves if we try to improve what we have rather than the free reign of deleting and starting from scratch. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. A cursory reading proved the article to have some inaccuracies. Other, actual controversies aren't really covered at all. Delete. Lucern99 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Yeah, also looks fine to me. I think it's very good to have a large encyclopedia, especially one full of content that we cannot possibly be sued over lol. Harmless enough. KaDaShOvA (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Kadashova RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia, so I don't think this is particularly good of a reason to keep it. — LunaAHHHHH 18:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
    I am also going to argue that it is not 'harmless enough' because it is so fact-light it is basically useless. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  2. Plutocow (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  3. Looks good to me. I don't get it. Totemtrained (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Create a UK Parliament page, merge into that. United States Congress is missional, so I think UK Parliament is too. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 03:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. Carthage (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. DM is right. Spud (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 04:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  5. Not quite deletable imo, some stuff can be salvaged. EditorialMaster (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  6. Good arguments, good arguments. In both deletion discussions. Maybe a redirect is enough. ☣🍆☣ (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  7. The obvious choice given the arguments above. 👁️4️⃣🔎 (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
  8. Merge. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  9. Agree with merge. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 04:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

House of Lords | Result: Merged[edit]

House of Lords (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Is a low-quality non-missional page. Not as bad as the Commons one, but not by much. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. Not particularly missional. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. Why should we basically copy wikipedia? Totemtrained (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. if not then merge as per below. 'though probably easier just scrap and start a parliament page from scratch. there isnt anything in this one, or the commons one, and what is there...there some strange choices for inclusion' AMassiveGay (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. I can see no good argument in favour of our having it. "Other articles are worse" or "it's harmless" are not good reasons for keeping this, or any, article.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Harmless. Plutocow (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. Agree with the editor Plutocow. There are many articles that are way worse. The sources don't look bad to me. The sex scandals are "missional" in the sense of a general skepticism and citizen journalism. ☣🍆☣ (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. Yes, the article right now is mostly useless, but I'd like to see some critical views on this medieval institution. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    If it is 'mostly useless', why retain it? Any decent RW HoL article is most likely to build from scratch. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. Either keep and rewrite or downsize and merge with House of Commons. The House of Lords is unique among Western legislatures in having automatically appointed clergy (the 26 "Lords Spiritual", who are senior bishops in the Church of England). That alone should be considered missional. Additionally, its members hold significant influence in British politics despite not being elected. Again, I would say that would make it missional. Many of our articles on British politics refer to the House of Lords, often as a place to retain individuals who have lost an election or otherwise retired in government (such as Rishi Sunak appointing David Cameron to the HoL for just that reason). Again, missional, in my view. How about I volunteer to do a major rewrite and reduction over the next week or so? I could rewrite it in such a way that it could easily be dropped into a merged UK Parliament page if necessary. JumboWhales (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't object to it being a subsection of a wider 'British Parliament' page; however this is one of those topics where I think we should simply do a quick [but accurate] overview of the topic and then point to better, more detailed sources if you want to get into the weeds. It's not that I felt this topic is utterly unmissional more that the current article is so poor/outdated nothing would be really lost if you simply nuked it and started again. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    That seems reasonable. I'd still like to include the missional (to me at least) aspects I mentioned, such as the Lords Spiritual, but I'll wait to see how things develop first. The HoL section could, and should, still be quite short - no more than a few paragraphs should do it, e.g. short intro, unelected and Lords Spiritual section, cronyism section. JumboWhales (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    The sexual abuse scandals seem relevant. Carthage (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    not if you were to look at the sources. 1 in 5 claims refer to a parliament wide survey, i dont think the lords is even mentioned in the article, 1 source talks of a sexist sign beimg removed from one of the bars, another refers to another bar being exceptionally raucous, several on lord sewel doing coke off a hookers tits (you are not a man till you do it off a guys hard on). in the section we even say the 'scandals' are overhyped in the press. the whole of that section is poor. 'The Lords are often accused of being up to no good' then 'expenses, sex, drugs' with dubious links. this is not informative or useful in anyway AMassiveGay (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    Small question. How does one perform the desired outcome if the guy in question is bananaman in stature? KarmaPolice (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. Yeah, harmless enough. KaDaShOvA (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Create a UK Parliament page, merge into that. United States Congress is missional, so I think UK Parliament is too. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 03:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Duce. Carthage (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. I agree with him too. Spud (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. merge and actually put some meat in it actually worth a page AMassiveGay (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    though probably easier just scrap and start a parliament page from scratch. there isnt anything in this one, or the commons one, and what is there...there some strange choices for inclusionAMassiveGay (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 04:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  6. I reconsidered after rereading it alongside the House of Commons article. A redirect with the scandals section left intact is probably the best choice. Totemtrained (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  7. Merge. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  8. Merge. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 04:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Dimitri van der Linden | Result: Deleted[edit]

Dimitri van der Linden (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. This article has been chopped down to a few conference paper briefs with little credible discussion or refutation. It also appears to be a magnet for anonymous-driven controversy. Anything the subject's done can be addressed on other pages, e.g. Intelligence, as appropriate. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  2. Minimal content and block quotes from London Conference on Intelligence (what is the point?). Mods also need to AfD: Aurelio J. Figueredo. 134.209.215.176 (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    Anyone can set up an AfD, not just moderators. That means you, if you feel so inclined.
    Regards, Avarice   00:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  3. -Flandres (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  4. Christopher (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. No point in keeping it as is, especially since it can't really expand without treading on uneasy ground (for the moment, at least). Can easily be made a section for the London Conference on Intelligence (in which case a redirect is justified) or, should there be too little content for a full section, a sentence-or-two mention (in which case we should just delete the article).
    Regards, Avarice   00:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  2. Not notable enough for an article; we don't need an article for every single minor London Conference on Intelligence guest. BobJohnson (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  3. Antares (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Kenya Kura | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Doesn't give any indication why he is relevant to our mission. Certainly doesn't make it clear that he is a racialist or eugenicist." Spud (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  2. Article was created by a banned user: User:Ze a sockpuppet of User:Judge Dredd/User:D (aka Arthur Kerensa, Dysk, dysklyver, and other many aliases/accounts). Ze/Judge Dredd/D/Arthur Kerensa defended pedophilia and was a friend of Nathan Larson. I don't think this wiki should keep up articles written by pedophilia-apologists. Delete. 157.245.217.172 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  3. Bongolian (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  4. -Flandres (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  5. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  6. Christopher (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. I'd like to say that who created this article is completely irrelevant. We don't delete articles just because they were created by banned users. We don't delete articles just because they were created by banned users who have spoken in favour of complete scumbags. But we have deleted some articles that put forward those scumbags' vile ideas. Spud (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Sagacious News Network | Result: Vaporized[edit]

Sagacious News Network (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Seems to be an unpopular site. Why bother? Bongolian (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Re-opening an inappropriately closed AfD discussion from 2015. An extremely obscure and long dead webshite. The treatment here reads like a blog post and is unlikely to be updated. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
    The article was deleted 20 minutes after the 2015 AfD, it was then recreated by someone else. Christopher (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  3. If a webshite was especially important or cranky we should keep a record of it. This was not especially important or cranky beyond belief. Sentence: Death by Boiling Alive. A somebody. (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  4. If you google "Sagacious News Network", RationalWiki is the only result that relates to the site. A dead website that was far too obscure to ever warrant an article. Christopher (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  5. Defunct site (URL is being used by someone else). No citations. Bongolian (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  6. -Flandres (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Goat[edit]

London Conference on Intelligence | Result: Keep (Later deleted by Board)[edit]

London Conference on Intelligence (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Most attendees who spoke at London Conference on Intelligence have had their articles deleted. Very few names are left. Secondly, the article contains a red link and at least one entire paragraph will have to be removed. 143.198.0.49 (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Article remains both missional and informative. Some slight rewrites to deal with any issues can be done with relatively little effort. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  2. Keep and rewrite. Pinkerite (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  3. Keep and edit. Documenting networks is the most valuable thing RW does for contemporary fringe movements (ie. explain that someone is a flat earther, document that fact, point to page on Flat Earth for more information; most cranks are boring once you know one or two cranks in the same space, but naming that space is important).Polydamas (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  4. We can maybe hide it 'til the move to Oregon is complete, but otherwise keep. Plutocow (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  5. No good reason to delete. –Regards, Avarice 18:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  6. No deletions for drive-by BoNs. Bongolian (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  7. keep - it's interesting! — Unsigned, by: Scream!! / talk / contribs
  8. Antares (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  9. A somebody. (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]


May 2025[edit]

John Kwok | Result: Delete[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. The page is a collection of internet drama from over a decade ago. Its subject doesn't appear to have done anything worthy of a RW page since. Christopher (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  2. As the person who originally posited the question of deletion, it behooves me to vote in favor of same. Put less pretentiously, I don't see the point in keeping the article. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
  3. -Flandres (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  4. Bongolian (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  5. Antares (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  6. Seems not even missional, just blog drama. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Alt-center | Result: Delete[edit]

Alt-center (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. There's no academic or media sources on the "alt-center". There's only about a dozen people listed on article and several of them had articles which were deleted. The term does not appear to have an unambiguous or straightforward definition. The article only mentions three people who have actually self-described as "alt-center" [redacted]. Most of the listed people as alt-center dispute the term. Seems to me to be an obvious delete. 142.93.13.144 (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. Not a good article. The Vitalia article I made edits to I think is barely salvageable although someone could make an AfD for that seperate article. Cryogenica (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. Something should be mentioned about it on the alt-right page though, or the section on the glossary page should be expanded to more than 1 sentence (Alt-right glossary#Alt-center). If deleted, it should probably redirect to the that section. Bongolian (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. -Flandres (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  5. Rubbish. 159.65.175.32 (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  6. Vague, people voting merge can't agree on how it should be defined. Only one or two far-right types have ever used the term, so merging into the alt-right glossary doesn't make sense. Christopher (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Redirect to the alt-right glossary's section on the concept, since there definitely are self-proclaimed "centrists" who work to normalize far-right bullshit. Antares (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  2. Streamline and merge into the alt-right glossary page. Plutocow (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. I agree, boil it down and list on the Alt-Right Glossary. Cross-reference Third Way, Third Positionism (not a sex thing!) and Scott Alexander's Grey Tribe.Polydamas (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  4. What PC said. As a sidenote, Sargon called himself "Alt-center" on his Shitter account last year aswell (haven't checked his Shitter recently). Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

April 2025[edit]

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Elite Human Capital

Infofascism | Result: Vaporized[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. This should have better sources if it's worth keeping at all. Original research is one thing, but RationalWiki shouldn't be Terrell E. Arnold's personal webblog. This article is on top of the search result, too, and the concept really doesn't seem to mean much. I really resent stuff like that. Elf (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  2. Jeez, a link to Jeff Rense's conspiracy webshite? This is beyond ridiculous. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  3. Reads more like something that belongs in a listicle. Plus, our Censorship article already mentions in bigger detail what can be read on that page... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Eyeslasho | Result: Delete? Aye, aye![edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Per @Pinkerite's comment: "Eyeslasho a very average Xitter racist whose only notability is being retweeted by Elon Musk? If that's the case, I don't understand why they even have a RW entry with all their unnoteworthy, typical racist beliefs splashed all over their page - why not delete the Eyeslasho page and just add a section to the Elon Musk page?". Basically Eyeslasho is a Twitter troll who has changed his account handle about a dozen times. Most recently this includes changing it to @"rational_wiki" to troll this site. The same individual owns many other Twitter and Facebook accounts (he was previously "A New Radical Centrism" on both) and probably uses more than 50 aliases and pseudonyms online. I don't think it was wise for RationalWiki to accept a page on a demented internet troll with so many fake names. The same attention seeking troll has a penchant for impersonations (creating fake accounts impersonating other users) and has repeatedly lied about their own biographical background on Twitter. It seems they also likely created a fake doxx of themselves. This person likes to troll people with fake doxxes and identities. I believe they are the same person who wrote the fake doxx of themself on that Substack. Suffice to say, creating an article on a mentally ill troll was not needed and it has resulted in him creating the @rational_wiki handle and apparently impersonating the RMF elsewhere. It is also possible that Eyeslasho owns the @Griffina account who created their own article. 45.250.252.153 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  2. There are multiple links directly to Twitter than no longer exist and were not archived (#13-16 confirmed, but probably a lot more). I would expect that one of the people that wants this article to remain (@GeeJayK, Antares, and Lavalizard101) would fix this (deleting any otherwise unsubstantiated text that uses these links) if the final vote is to keep. That's the bare minimum to de-crapify this article. The account owner appears to have gone on a deletion spree in preparation for a lawsuit. Bongolian (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    I checked several and they are tweets that were never archived. Since no archives exist, Eyeslasho will likely lie and deny the quotes are real and there is no way to substantiate either way. For example, references 44, 47, 52 are deleted and don't exist on archive.is. Like 40% or more of the article will have to be deleted since no archived copies of many of his tweets exist. It remains unclear why in the first place archived versions were not linked to and only the live URLs. I don't think it's a salvageable article. 62.12.119.243 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  3. Bongo convinced me. Antares (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  4. Lots of unfounded accusations in the article. Maybe we should move away from this kind of drama more generally. Elf (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
    Can you provide one unfounded accusation? Eyeslasho was posting eugenics and pro-natalism but in the past month deleted all those tweets and has tried to reinvent himself. Anarcho-communist (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  5. I don't know much about this poster specifically, but a mass deletion of eugenics 2.0./low-level race science crap would have my blessings. The constant trolling on here probably has something to do with these articles, and I see no real reason for this website to cover it in such detail. Is RationalWiki really supposed to be doing the SPLC's job? They have like a billion USD endowment, people. EllyPo (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  6. I don't think it serves us to be giving any oxygen to some troll on the cesspool that is X. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  7. Non notable internet troll with hardly any independent sourcing. 2001:67C:6EC:203:192:42:116:184 (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC) Either we strike out all IPs here or we strike out none of them. KaDaShOvA (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  8. We cannot cover everybody who has ever said something racist on the internet. We can't even cover everybody whose posts have been shared by Elon Musk who's ever said something racist on the internet. Spud (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
    He's not some rando. He has over 200k subscribers on Shitter. Antares (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. As everyone knows, I hate Twitter drama, but this person has almost 200k followers, so I think they are notable. Besides, the fact that we pissed him off makes me believe that we did something right by having this article. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    This Twitter troll isn't some random asshole. He's an asshole who has the ear of Elon Musk. Antares (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  2. He has 200k followers he's not some rando asshole. Especially considering he's well versed enough to be pissed at us. Random assholes tend not to get pissed at us. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  3. KaDaShOvA (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
    So, will you fix the problem of the many dead and unarchived references, @KaDaShOvA? Bongolian (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
    Hm, ok. I'll be less busy soon. If this discussion ends in a keep, I'll look into removing potential libel and other cruft from the article. KaDaShOvA (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  4. Confusing situation. I'd just keep some minimal version of the article. If there is a legal reason to delete articles on people like i/o, that decision should probably be made elsewhere by the site mods or community. I'll remove my vote if newcomer input isn't welcome, though. Whatever. ☣🍆☣ (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

#This Eyeslasho far-right person is actively gaslighting and impersonating RationalWiki and trying to damage this website through X.com and in private emails https://x.com/rational_wiki/status/1907081051383501005. Deleting this article is exactly what he wants and will be a huge win for him 2001:67C:89C:702:1CE:1CE:BABE:2 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  1. One of the most influential X/Twitter "hereditarians" (=racists) out there. He also likes to post misleading crme statistics. If he doesn't deserve one of our articles, I don't know who would. On a related note, RationalWiki should really come up with a stringent notability guideline for social media figures. How many subscribers exatly would be a necessary condition for inclusion? Post-Stalinist (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
    What metric are you using to claim that Eyeslasho is "one of the most influential" anything? I never heard of him outside of Rational Wiki. And for those who say he can't be a rando because he has a lot of followers - exactly how many followers does a garden-variety anonymous Twitter troll need before they are no longer a rando? And RW already deleted someone who actually matters in the world of hereditarians, [redacted] who is much more influential than this rando weirdo who some people on RW are inexplicably obsessed with. So if [redacted]'s article can go, Eyerando can certainly go. Pinkerite (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Yes, I recommend a section in the Musk article, as Eyeslasho themselves does not seem to be more than a very average pseudonymous X/Twitter troll, made infamous for being retweeted by Elon Musk. A pseudonymous Xitter troll with a big following is not noteworthy other than one more demonstration that Xitter is a shithole where racists gather. And pissing off a racist is not the point of a RW article, even if often a side-effect. Pinkerite (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
    It's incredibly frustrating that the persuasive argument here seems to be that the Eyeslasho article is a crap article with bad non-archived links (which is true) rather than there's no point in having an article about an anonymous X/Twitter account. Yes, Eyeslasho is obnoxious and racist - but you can say the same about a million other X/Twitter accounts - are you going to give each of those an article too? Other than people at Rational Wiki, who gives a damn what this rando says? Elon Musk retweeted them TWO YEARS AGO. It was only noteworthy then because some people still needed convincing that Musk is a racist and a Neo-Nazi. Some have argued well Eyeslasho has a lot of followers - but that's likely because Musk retweeted them. It all comes back to Musk. Pinkerite (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
    And then there's the fact that the [redacted] article was taken down, although it was a fair-to-good article about a non-anonymous person who has an actual impact on promoting race pseudoscience - and so racism - both for her past attempts to add race pseudoscience claims to Wikipedia articles and for her being a major player currently, in the International Society for Intelligence Research. She's orders of magnitude more significant than a X/Twitter rando, if less obvious about her racism. I really don't understand the priorities of some of you here. Pinkerite (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. I am the account owner of Eyeslasho, I use many pseudonym to conceal my identity. I am not filing a lawsuit against anyone, some other troll is trying to stir up trouble over that. I find the article about me funny. The reason I impersonated RationalWiki is because this website is claiming I am a eugenicist. I do not support eugenics, nor am I far right. I am a centrist. I am really not bothered if you delete or keep my article but at least keep it accurate. As for Elon Musk I now no longer support him, this should be obvious from my more recent tweets. Yonalkhas (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
    Can you confirm your identity here on X? This place is infested with impersonations while the real Eyeslasho also creates fake accounts. It is hard to tell who is who. 98.98.43.163 (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  2. Mixed. On the one hand, yeah the fact that a lot of the cited tweets no longer exist even in archived form is kinda problematic and while I'm not a legal expert we probably shouldn't be playing with fire right now. If this is kept, it will need a significant cleanup to avoid any issues. That said, in 2025 you can't argue that Elon Musk-endorsed Twitter bullshit isn't having a significant negative effect in the real world and if this person is actively maneuvering against RationalWiki I don't really want to let them off the hook. Plutocow (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
    We're facing six lawsuits (as far as I'm aware). I would normally argue to keep this article, but the fact that we're being hit with a deluge of SLAPP suits + the fact that this article is so shoddily written suggests that we're better off burning this article and perhaps starting from scratch. Either that, or do what Pinkerite suggests. Antares (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Linking to to my important discussion ---> here. Eyeslasho is now falsely claiming to be the "new director" of the RMF and is likely also the individual impersonating the RMF on emails. 165.22.12.74 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Note to mods[edit]

You should lock this to admins only. A bunch of suspicious new accounts (days or a few weeks old) are randomly showing up to vote. I thought a ban was placed on new accounts voting? 24.144.119.32 (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The restrictions were for policy votes and elections, not for AFDs. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

March 2025[edit]

Michelle Hopkins | Result: Terminated[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Does not meet the minimum number of followers rule (100,000+). She has 75K.[1] Bongolian (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
  2. Scream!! (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
  3. Inactive too. Antares (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
  4. The Great YouTube Purge continues. Spud (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  5. Make it go away. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  6. Elf (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/Redirect[edit]

  1. Merge into HAARP. KaDaShOvA (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
    What content do you think should be added there? Christopher (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Oy vey | Result: Redirected to Alt-right glossary#Oy vey[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. I have already merged this article's content into Alt-right glossary#Oy vey to see what that would look like. Fits in quite well. I think this article really isn't needed until someone has the time to significantly expand upon and source it better. I wonder what the community has to say. Elf (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
  2. Looks ok. ☣🍆☣ (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
  3. No substance.Kamehameha (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. It would be trivial to make it a better article. It's also, by far, one of the most prominent alt-right memes out there and, therefore, deserves special coverage. Totemtrained (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Atheist thumper | Result: Thumped and dumped[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. The article just is a listicle of atheists (which we have a category for) and some really bad in-jokes. Any legitimate use for this page is already covered under fundamentalist atheism. Plutocow (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
  2. Didn't even know it existed after all these years. Bongolian (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
  3. Antares (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
  4. Bloody awful. Spud (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
  5. KaDaShOvA (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
  6. Yeah, this sucks. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 12:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Black chamber | Result: Total blackout[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. I clicked random page and found this article. I don't find it particularly useful or interesting. Besides, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_noir already, and it's way more detailed. This is my first proposed deletion. I wonder what the community has to say. Elf (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  2. Dogshit stub without citations beyond a link to an already existing Wikipedia article. Antares (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  3. Nothing of substance here, even if the topic is missional. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 13:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  4. This one should have been immediately placed in draft what it was created. After ten years it seems that no one is willing to do a proper treatment. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 13:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  5. Low quality. Apparently, the general attitude here is deletionism. I'm ok with that. CapitalF (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  6. Merde! Spud (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  7. KaDaShOvA (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  8. Redundant and pointless. We don't need articles for every political term. Ioe bidome (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

RationalWiki:Vandals | Result: Binned[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. This usergroup no longer exists in the code and this page only serves as a vandal magnet. The original reason for creating the article is obsolete (as Special:ListGroupRights no longer links there) and there's no reason to keep it around. Plutocow (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  2. Pointless. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  3. A somebody. (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  4. If it no longer exists, it no longer exists I suppose. Totemtrained (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  5. Per all Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 13:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  6. Oh, Jesus tapdancing Christ on a bike! No! The last thing we need is a page called RationalWiki:Vandals. Kill it now and protect it so that no tosser can ever recreate it. Spud (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  7. Troll Antares (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Friends of Hamas | Result: Merged with Ben Shapiro[edit]

Friends of Hamas (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

  1. I don't know. Two or three additional citations and the article could be worthwhile enough. Totemtrained (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. There isn't really too much behind the subject of this article beyond it being a hoax that was quickly forgotten. It can be merged into Ben Shapiro or Breitbart, but as a standalone article it's just going to forever remain a stub. Plutocow (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  2. Plutocow makes a good case. EllyPo (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  3. to Ben Shapiro. —🌌 Lunar 🌠 17:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  4. Redirect to conspiracy theory. Lucern99 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  5. 👁️4️⃣🔎 (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

February 2025[edit]

Lee Ingram | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. I came across this article because some guy who seems to have been stalking its subject just created a RationalWiki account. The most the guy's ever done is get 354 votes in a 2011 local election. He's got less 153 followers on the youtube channel linked in the article, and 216 on the more recent one provided by his stalker. The article consists of Facebook screenshots and other boring internet drama. Christopher (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  2. And most of the references are broken. Candidate for speedy deletion. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  3. Delete, non notable person. Oldman4 (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  4. Per all above. Monet Ye 08:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  5. Presenting some internet nobody from 10 years ago as if he were an important and influential figure in right-wing politics. Exactly the kind of crap that RW has to free itself of. Spud (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
  6. I agree with Spud; this is the kind of article we need less of. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 17:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Template:Odinname | Result: Gone to Valhalla without a tear being shed[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Only used in Norse mythology, it's also a useless redirect. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  2. Not much point having a template that can only be used on one page and doesn't even need to be used there. Spud (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

Julia Sweeney | Result: Canned[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. So she had one monologue about atheism that was quoted by Richard Dawkins and that's worthy of an article? The article is also a crappy stub. Plutocow (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  2. I question why this farticle was created in the first place. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  3. Enough has been said. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 02:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  4. Dogshit article. Carthage (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  5. Evaluation: Incineration. A somebody. (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  6. Uninteresting. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 04:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  7. Bad article. The formatting is especially screwed-up. Fedora (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  8. Looks like a badly-written stub about a nobody. EditorialMaster (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

January 2025[edit]

Lee Jussim | Result: Given the "hatchet"[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. stubby, does not seem sufficiently missional Bongolian (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. This one is borderline missional. So what if he's influenced by HBD twits? This fact doesn't justify an article here. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. I'm not sure if my vote as a newcomer counts for much, but guilt by association is dishonest business. I applaud the initiative. MalAdeptus (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. Neither the research by this guy as described, nor his politically tinted engagement, seems to reach up to a missional level of anything. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. -Flandres (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  6. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  7. Gonna go ahead and delete it since consensus (including my own) seems overwhelmingly in favor of axing it. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 07:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  • The "politicization of academia" is a reactionary dogwhistle, by the way. Carthage (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Eric Hobsbawm | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. I don't think this Afd will pass, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't. Yes Hobsbawm is missional, but right now, I think this article is too inaccurate even for draftspace (see my post on the talk page[2] so TNT would probably be a better idea. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. After looking him up and reading some stuff about this guy, I agree that the article seems like a hit piece and a mischaracterization. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. Carthage (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. Dear god that sourcing. A somebody. (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. TNT time. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
  6. cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. The citations seem flimsy. Few appear broken, one directs to some publisher, one appears to be a blog post and two cites being from not entirely reliable right-leaning newspapers, Daily Mail and (post-2007) Wall Street Journal. In comparison the English Wikipedia counterpart seems to have more authoritative citations on the subject. -- DangerousTomaccoUser (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Fróði Debes | Result: Deleted[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Article is only 1 paragraph and some block quotes. Does not appear to be remotely noticeable. 185.112.82.146 (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Per nominator. Kadashova (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. It's probably trolling, but I don't really find much notably pseudoscientific / racialist / hereditarianism about this guy, other than the one (honestly rather bad) linked article in Intelligence whining about Stephen Jay Gould and "wah! media!" (of which far more notable racialists are involved). BobJohnson (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  4. Agreed. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 22:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  5. He might be an article-worthy. But this is not it. Bongolian (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Improve, don't delete. This man is clearly missional, and documenting the racist pseudoscientists who work to give racist pseudoscience some level of pseudolegitimacy is important. Carthage (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any evidence that Debes has published racism. His papers quoted on article are about prenatal exposure to methylmercury and a Faroe Islands study. Nothing to do with race. From what I can tell this guy got an article because he attended the London Conference on Intelligence but if you look around for sources on internet you finding very little about him. It should be noted the article never actually described Debes as a racist but a "HBD" proponent, although to some (many?) people those things are synonymous or related. 185.77.217.177 (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
My problem with "improve don't delete" is that articles kept with this reasoning are almost never improved. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. Given the timing, this could be an attempt at trolling. I'll still vote delete until that's established. Kadashova (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. I'm sorely tempted to vote "keep" just to spite whoever's trying to bombard the AFD with sockpuppets and whining. But I don't know enough about this guy to cast judgment on this article one way or the other. ABigBoxOfSand (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Woo-meisters | Result: All woo[edit]

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

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Another category that suffers from being poorly defined similarly to Enablers before it. "Woo-meisters are those who try to separate desperate people from their money by peddling false hope." So basically Category:Scams "The term can also apply to individuals who ascribe to multiple types of woo." So basically Category:Crank magnetism. The fact that there are two separate definitions for the same category is never a good sign, and this feels like another one that is just mindlessly slapped on the pages of people we don't like. Plutocow (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. Carthage (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. Yeah, it's redundant. We have Category:Shysters dedicated to charlatans, and Category:Pseudoscience promoters for those who spread a lot of woo. Those are parent categories of Category:Woo-meisters, and together they cover all legit uses of it. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. This category seems like an artifact of the early RationalWiki snark pattern, and as noted above, is redundant and poorly defined. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. I agree with the above points. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 20:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  6. Delete - agree with all of the above EditorialMaster (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. Before you delete this category, please let me remove all pages from it first. A somebody. (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    You do know we could do it automatically with User:Inferno Bot, but whatever. Plutocow (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @A somebody., I've asked Techpriest to run it, so you don't need to manually clear the rest of the category out. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    After a day, I decided to wait no more and set up User:GoryCatizer Bot and run it myself. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Naturopathic medicine laws by state | Result: Go look it up on the internet[edit]

Naturopathic medicine laws by state (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

  1. Just a list compiled mostly from a single website. Not updated in five years, and unlikely to be maintained regularly. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]