RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Con artist

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Con artist | Result: Redirected[edit]

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

Keep[edit]

  1. Arguments about missionality don't quite ring true to me. Historical con artistry frequently involved both pseudoscience and crankery. There's no reason that specific people are crucial to the on-mission component. In fact, I'd say they're secondary at best. A quiet stub isn't a problem. Ikanreed (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. I would rename the page to con artistry or better yet, confidence game and keep it. A compendium of some of the classic scams and how they're updated for the times, together with a discussion of the psychology involved, strikes me as something fairly obviously missional. This is true even if we can't have a list of con artists any more. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Oh yeah, a move would be crucial. The activity is far more relevant than the people, per my previous argument. Ikanreed (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. I think it's missional. A title change would probably be good though - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. I'll support a historical history of con artists. Confidence game seems appropriate. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. I would keep and populate with examples of convicted con artists such as Bernie Madoff, Ponzi, Billie Sol Estes, etc. Hclodge (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Many astrologers", "psychics", and woo-peddlers are con artists (not all, though, some are simply delusional). Indeed, probably a large percentage of woo exists simply because some con artist wanted to make a buck somewhere... So it seems on-mission to me. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

  1. This article no longer lists named examples and is a useless stub. Nutty states it should not be expanded with named examples. There is no point in keeping a stub that has non-missionality. Castaigne (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Although I think it is on-mission, it's also a libel-attractor, particularly with the less-than-neutral sounding title of "con artist". MarmotHead (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Is just a dictionary definition of a phrase everyone already knows. Looks like CorruptUser added some more content. Still pretty short and not really a necessary article to have, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Just redirect to Category:Scams or delete. Anyone who doesn't know what a con artist is, can just use a dictionary. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. I merged with Charlatan. Feel free to delete! CorruptUser (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. I vote we restore all the people that were removed from the page, for content purposes, but replace all the actual names with Nutty, for libel purposes. Trick (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'm pleased to know that Trent and the RMF getting sued is funny to you. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    And I'm just as glad that it's a topic that we can resolve in a caustic and overall irresolute manner. Trick (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Can we not do this, Trick? I don't think it's helping. Ikanreed (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Since the missionality paradox involved here is one not of my authority to resolve, I am ambivalent. --Madman (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
  3. I'm not sure why we can't just open the example section with a note saying not to add any living persons and then fill it with dead con artists.--TiaC (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Possibility of defamation suits from living descendents. Although you might want to check with Nutty to make sure. --Castaigne (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    I am not and never have been the RMF's lawyer. Don't check with me. Try making a good decision on your own. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    You don't really want me to do that. My "good decision" will always be "Whatever is the most certain course."...and certainty is best established by permanent deletion. --Castaigne (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Merge it with Charlatans? CorruptUser (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Ok, I prepared it a bit more, and I think it can be added to Charlatans. Anyone know when the results of the vote are? Also, thanks Ikan, added your link. CorruptUser (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    Just merge it. The consensus is that this article as is isn't useful but that people want historical examples, which "Chartalans" can provide quite well. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 18:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Yes! Merge with Charlatan. Spud (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. A great source popped up quite recently: How Scams Worked In The 1800s Ikanreed (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)