RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/BadEmpanada

BadEmpanada | Result: Eliminado

BadEmpanada (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. The page as it currently exists is an unwarranted puff piece for a controversial ML pundit. He's made some good videos, but he is far more known for pointless drama. I advocate to move this either to draft or for a hasty delete. Carthage (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
2. In order to make a decent page on BadEmpanada, you'd have to 1. watch a ton of their videos on both their main and second channel, 2. watch a bunch of videos on a bunch of other channels to make sure his claims are up to snuff, 3. document his debauchery on a bunch of banned social media accounts that may or may not be archived, 4. do a lot of research into subjects like Latin American hitory, leftism, and politics to analyze his claims. BadEmpanada isn't worth this much effort to create a decent article, and the article is terrible in its current state. Plutocow (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
3. I was planning on going through this over the weekend and completely removing the puff parts of this piece, and going over all of the many, many negatives about him, but honestly, the page isn't even that necessary in my opinion. I'm okay with it just being deleted before that happens. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kaaYvauNho This video caused a bunch of edit wars on wikipedia, which was interesting to investigate, but ultimately I side with the wikipedia editors on him not knowing what he is talking about. Otherwise I hear he has called for terrorism and murder, etc, unless we are going to give a more clear picture of who he is, the article should probably not exist. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
5. We are not here just to big up YouTubers you happen to like. And linking to their Patreon and Ko-Fi pages amounts to spam. Spud (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
6. I'm not really seeing any benefit to RationalWiki or our mission by having this article here. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep

1. I fail to see why incomplete information warrants a deletion, as there exist plenty of other articles that are similarly structured and are allowed to be kept, such as Shaun. Plus, there are links of videos from his main channel listed in the article. There are also plenty of articles critiquing BsdEmpanada's videos, such as these ones. He even got a response from Kurzgesagt to his rebuttal on climate change. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

   Your "articles" are some nobody's blog and a YouTube video with less than a thousand views. Plutocow (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

   What about his debates with Vaush, Destiny, Kurzgesagt, Matt Binder, Knowing Better, and Johnny Harris? Plus, in my opinion, if BadEmpanada should be deleted, so should people like Shaun. His overall channel even has more than 9 million views. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

   A few response videos don't address the problems with this article. "Other stuff exists" is not a valid excuse either, especially as Bad Empanada is much more controversial than Shaun to say the least and their articles shouldn't be handled the same. Plutocow (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, it's not even that there's incomplete information, it's that you wrote a puff piece. You decided to just link sixteen of your favourite videos of his, you included, not one, but two of his crowdfunding pages—both his Patreon and his Ko-fi—and nothing about his controversies, such as his genocide denial or sending of death threats to every single person he dislikes. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I already linked a video of his that details a dispute he had with one of his political rivals over accusations of antisemitism against him in the career section. Also, if the genocide denial you're referring to is his Holodomor video, he's not denying that it happened, but just analyzing the Wikipedia article's sources. Additionally, most the the death threats I recall (i.e. "Stalin, Beria, Gulag!") are mostly jokes, rather than genuine threats and the screenshot of him supposedly threatening to have Eristocracy targeted by a Palestinian militant group is fake and references a video game. The list of videos on the article is not really selective either, as all of them come from his main channel, so this is not an issue of me "just linking my favorite videos." Instead of just assuming that this is a case of me "just creating articles of people I like," can you please ask me why I did it next time? DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Treating Wikipedia like the pinnacle of history scholarship on atrocities, i.e. specifically choosing to respond to the popular representation as collected by possible-laypeople, seems like the sort of thing genocide deniers would do, tbh (though I don't know what all he said or anything). Don't get me wrong Wikipedia articles can be surprisingly decent, but if you were say taking the issue to court (as happened with e.g. the Holocaust in some instances), you would not search for an expert to give testimony by recruiting among Wikipedia editors. But as regards BadEmpanada in particular I could give you no well informed opinion other than he is not too shabby on finding decent sources sometimes (I did cite him to refute a claim Vaush made, and that's just one instance). Overall I have to abstain on the AfD I think. Chillpilled (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We could just add his debates with other streamers like Vaush and Kurzgesagt and add a list of controversies, like his Holodomor analysis and the accusations of antisemitism against him in regards to Israel. Plus, the benefits for having BadEmpanada here consist of refuting common Zionist propaganda, colonial apologism, detailing his controversies and debates with other streamers, dismantling clout arguments defending people like Vaush and Beau of the Fifth Column, and critiquing neoliberalism and American exceptionalism. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ If the article's missing so much content, it should be in the draft space. That's what draft is for. I wouldn't be against moving it over there, but will still keep my delete vote for the present thing in mainspace. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that this user doesn't seem to know what a "reliable source" is and thinks response videos qualify as "debate", I don't have much hope in their ability to improve the article. Plutocow (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah… doesn't a debate have to… you know… go back and forth? If two people make several response videos in reaction to each other on a single subject, then it could loosely be called a debate — and I'd still hesitate to describe it as such, given the lack of actual interaction as compared to a face-to-face conversation or even an Internet forum. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Debates with LonerBox, Destiny, YUGOPNIK, and Keffals (who has a Wikipedia article). DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Having a Wikipedia article is irrelevant, we don't care about notability, we care about missionality. BE is just over the line of having enough subscribers, that isn't in dispute, what's in dispute is whether this article is relevant to RW's mission. Plutocow (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

And I literally addressed how BadEmpanada having an article and elaborating on his debates with other streamers and his controversies (i.e. accusations of antisemitism and Holodomor denial) should be relevant to RW's mission. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)