RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Black Lives Matter

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Black Lives Matter | Result: Reversing course on my own reverse course: Kept 16 - 3[edit]

Black Lives Matter (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete[edit]

  1. Off mission. Poorly written (huge blockquote from random Redditor - really?) and extremely one-sided. Edit war bait. Shtrominer (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Biased article to present these guys as a "human rights group", in fact they're mostly racist thugs. Should be deleted since the truth isn' being posted. I provided evidence for this on BLM talk page: (1) video evidence shows entire crowds of BLM activists shouting for the killing of cops, (2) many members of BLM were on camera saying their crowd would not accept anyone who is not "black" or "African descent" (they turned away some "white" guy) and (3) the fact BLM invite black supremacists to their conferences or organized events.Krom (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    "I don't like that the articles tone does not agree with me" is not a valid reason for deleting it any more than "it causes edit wars!" is--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    Why then aren't we saying Stormfront is a "human rights" group? This is why most people think RW is a place for self-hating "white" liberals -- there's a double standard here that stinks on most race articles.Krom (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    Because it isn't.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    Stormfront: cop haters, white separatists, white supremacist = racist extremists. Black Lives Matter: cop haters, black separatists, black supremacists = anti-racist human rights group??? Ok. Thanks for proving my point. Krom (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    I never said one thing about BLM, I said your reason is not a valid reason to go around wanting articles deleted and I would summarily close any AFD's you started with such a reason.. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    So Krom, watched any Fox News lately? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:13, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
  3. Although the cure for a shitty article is not deletion there is nothing in this article that is on-mission. Tielec01 (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. On-mission. Not horribly written compared to RW's general standards. RW covers controversial issues, so yes, edit wars may occur. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:24, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
  3. Edit war bait? You mean like most of the articles here? --Akira (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Easily on-mission, and "people may edit war about it" is a crap reason to propose deletion. BicyclewheelModerator 19:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Might as well be arguing for deleting Occupy Wall Street. CorruptUser (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. Solving edit wars by deleting articles is a shit way to do. This article is clearly on-mission (is about a more or less notable civil rights organization ).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  7. Why in the world would this article be deleted? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  8. On-Mission? Of course! Edit war bait? Most of the articles here are. Might as well argue about the feminism article being deleted. It's been improved enough that it doesn't look poorly written at all. So, why should this article be deleted?--Pokefrazer (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  9. BLM is patently a response to a pattern of authoritarian systemic abuse, and so sits squarely in RW's wheelhouse. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  10. Spurious reasoning is Spurious --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  11. If this article is off mission, so are Gamergate, Anonymous, Rape Culture and a whole host more. No, the problem is editors not demanding that Avenger and Arisboch refrain from inserting factually false footnotes. They are not even required to engage it on the talk page. Make them document and do so accurately or omit note altogether, and leave the article alone.---Mona- (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    Deletion discussions ain't the place to bitch about other users or their edits, that's what user- and article-talkpages are there for.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
    You could have done without all the stuff after "a whole host more" up in the keep section--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    I should have put it under Keep -- you're right. But I stand by my entire comment. But then, you've been wholly unwilling to admit the problem and I don't know what to do about that. It seems a form of denial -- no snark. I find it incredibly frustrating.---Mona- (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    I fully understand the issues here - they have no relevance on voting whether the article should be kept or deleted , in particular when neither person was advocating for it's deletion. Don't drag fights into other pages. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, I get it.---Mona- (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  12. As the creator of the page, I stand that it needs to be expanded, with actual sources. Just because the content is controversial and some people don't like it that doesn't mean it's off-topic. Tuxer (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  13. --Owlman (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  14. ????? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  15. This is daft. I can't see 12 people suddenly coming along to vote for delete. Can't we declare this a keep already? Spud (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  16. The edit war is being caused by particular people, not the subject. This nomination is inane - David Gerard (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Close this now?[edit]

It's currently 16-3 in favour of keeping. Barring a comeback greater than Wales vs Scotland in 1988, this one's over. BicyclewheelModerator 18:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. If we delete this rather tame edit war due to edit warring, the only article that would stay on this wiki would be the one on Neptune Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    No, it's off mission. So according to some of the more rigid editors here, including the one who started this whole thing, it should be deleted as well. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep some discussions at one point[edit]

Whether BDS should be mentioned (and how) is now discussed at four or more different places. This is enough. Please discuss the BDS question at the BLM talk page where it first arose... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. So why are you raising it here? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Mona raised it above. Or at least I understood her words in that way. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
No. I didn't say that. The problem of your behavior extends far beyond the article unders discussion, but your behavior will continue to raise this problem and/or others. All of which is to say, this is not a discussion going on about BDS "in four or more different places. " Your behavior, and your comrade's, is the larger problem.---Mona- (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk about this elsewhere--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok. ---Mona- (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Black_Lives_Matter&oldid=1524360"