RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia:LA Times article of June 19, 2007

Conservapedia:LA Times article of June 19, 2007 | Result: Kept as a historical artifact

Conservapedia:LA Times article of June 19, 2007 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. This is a badly formatted, stalkeresque piece of shit that will never help anyone in any way. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
2. It even links back to itself in Wikipedia style Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

   That's because there were once two articles on the subject which were merged & somebody obviously forgot to remove the link between them. I've removed it now. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

3. Unless we plan to make it better, yah. At the least get rid of our commentary, which is just pointless horn-touting for some users. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep

1. An important piece of Conservapedia's & RationalWiki's early history. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

   Then put it as a section I said articles' pages, rather than as its current incarnation -- a shitty intro followed by a creey list of people mentioned. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 13:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

2. I cannot see how we can make this article "better," given that it appears to have been some sort of forum page. However, that being said, this article is vital to understanding the earliest roots of RationalWiki and our link to CONservapedia back in the day. With that being said, I strongly favor "keeping" it regardless of whether or not improving it is possible. Gooniepunk (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
3. this is a big part of CP and RW's early history. It wasn't even mentioned at the Great CP Article Purge, though. Bicycle^wheel 13:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
4. To me, unless it's made extra obvious it's being kept around as a museum piece, the best solution would be to keep it in the sense that we merge and absorb it into the larger Conservapedia (or RationalWiki) article. (And/or keep a Fun or Archive or something version around as a museum piece...?) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

   Well Conservapediaspace is effectively a museum these days. WIGO CP is the only active page in the whole space. Bicycle^wheel 16:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

5. Of historical interest for the wiki. Keep. --Castaigne (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat

• This article is literally one of the few pieces of press RationalWiki itself has ever got ... so it might be something to keep around for history. I dunno - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'd be happy with it being written better, mostly. Being an ancient article with importance to our history is no excuse for shoddy writing. Even more that it's one of our few mentions. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Having trouble telling how many people here want the article preserved and incorporated into the RW/CP articles or preserved as is. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  I make it four keeps (Weaseloid, Goonie, me, Castaigne) and two merges (you and Percy). Bicycle^wheel 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)