RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Count Dankula

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Count Dankula | Result: Deleted[edit]

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


  1. This article came very close (9:9) to being deleted last time it was nominated, with many people only voting keep because they thought it might improve. It hasn’t improved, and Count Dankula hasn’t become any less irrelevant. Christopher (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  2. still dogshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  3. Nuke from orbit. 主要行事月 (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  4. Sadly not notable. Gale5050 (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  5. Still hasn't shown up that much on my online political sphere radar. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  6. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 12:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  7. Kill it with Scorpio.gif — Unsigned, by: Monet / talk / contribs
  8. Not missional. Nobody need to think of the guy ever again. I feel sorry for his mom.UncleKrampus (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  9. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 00:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  10. Maybe not bad for a YouTube article, but it still sucks. GeeJayK (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  11. I said I'd vote delete if it got nominated again. I'm a man of my word. Spud (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


  1. I'm still of the opinion that this article should be kept, but given the tally as of writing is 7-nil delete with absolutely none of the prior "Keep" voters appearing despite this AFD being up for several days, I doubt that would be the outcome. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  2. Looks like a fine article to me. Natsuki Marx (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  3. Didn't we go through this already? Plutocow (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    We tried to, but no consensus was reached. Christopher (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    Admittedly, one user who voted delete last time is now permanently banned. Plutocow (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    it seemed to me to be understood that if there was no improvement to the existing article that would indicate there was anything to more to add or show anyone could be bothered we could take another look for afd. there was nothing added of worth, and no one could be arsed to even tidy up what is already there, so here we are. some were so convinced of its merits and its potential you'd think they would have brought more more to the article than to say he did some bad tweets. to be fair, there isnt anymore to add to the article, but no ones bothered to clean it up and make what is there pop despite championing its survival with such passion but such vacuous argument. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  4. He does at least have relevance to rationalwiki via his video on Xu Xiaodong, an MMA fighter in China struggling against both the government and the McDojo epidemic of that country. Dankula, Xiaodong and the former's video on the latter are all briefly mentioned on the main McDojo article, so we should probably keep Dankula' article at least so that people going into that otherwise-unoffensive video from the McDojo article will be warned beforehand that the guy who made it is an alt-righter. As it is, I've added a section to Dankula's article describing both the Xu Xiaodong video and his madlads series in general, since it was mentioned here that the article needs improving. And just to be clear, I do not share any of Meechan's political views, and haven't even watched any of his political videos.Skadooshbag (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  5. The article could use some expansion, but is otherwise fine. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)



I'm kind of leaning towards delete as I can see hardly any mission-relevance. But I see the last debate on this very subject was around four months ago. Shouldn't we have a cool-down period of at least a year between votes on articles? There could be a tendency for people who dislike articles to simply keep nominating them until the cards fall their way.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I would’ve waited a bit longer if the last result was keep, but in the event no consensus is reached I think waiting a bit less is justified. Christopher (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I can see that. And I honestly don't much care about this article one way or the other. It's the procedural question which interests me here. I think we should have a standardized "immunity from prosecution" period. If people express an interest I'll bring it up in CS.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
For now I think it can be handled on a case-by-case basis. In practice if you nominate an article repeatedly, when nothing’s changed and it was clear consensus was in favour of keep, the end result is that the vote is overwhelmingly delete and the afd is speedily closed, no harm done. Plus naming conventions limit things to two afds per year, and once you’ve had two in a year you can’t make a third without breaking them no matter how long you wait. Christopher (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess a question I would have is, "what is Youtube notable?" This wiki has a fair bit of (at first glance) non-notable Youtube pages. I mean, we have articles on people like Tara McCarthy and RageAfterStorm who pretty much have disappeared from the Internet after around 2018 or so, and really aren't notable outside their Internet circle. Or VenomFangX who disappeared even earlier, same with dprjones. You have people like C0nc0rdance who are a small skeptic Youtube channel, that's it. About 75% of this list has not had one mainstream-notable event that Count Dankula has had (I mean, even at a high level, who gives a fuck about someone like Shoe0nHead outside Youtube. And she's actually sort of Youtube-world notable.). Not that Count Dankula hasn't been notable since one blip in 2018, but a lot of these folks haven't even had that blip. So while I don't give a fuck about this article one way or another, it seems like our standards on "what is a good Youtuber article?" are pretty shit right now, and I'm a bit nonplussed about the way this AfD came up (BoNs leading to a guy who has pushed for an AfD pushing for another one). Seems like we've had a previous Youtuber purge but if this article is considered dogshit these days we really ought to look at some of the other ones. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on any of our articles about mediocre youtubers. I guess they were created when we had a user-base which was more into that medium? My inclination would be to purge most of them.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree the article is bad, but it's still more missional than almost any BreadTube article we have. Let's see:
  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
Now, many BreadTubers qualify for 2 and 3, but the articles are 90% of praise with 10% of critics. If we delete this one (a critical article about a crank) I don't see any reason for not deleting a fortiori most of the BreadTubers articles too. GeeJayK (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing stopping you from starting deletion discussions for any of the "BreadTube" articles here. Each article should be judged on its own merit (or lack thereof) and we should not be considering mass deletion along the lines of "this article is shit so we should also delete all these others while we're at it." —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, maybe I'll do that when I have time, but if I don't have support that would be just a waste of time I don't have. As the my drop of activity since May kinda shows, I unfortunately don't have to discuss anything controverisal right now. That's why I posted my opinion here. I'll probably make an AFD for Candlemakers' Petition and maybe Death toll of Christianity, but I'll probably stop there at least for now. GeeJayK (talk)
And in case I wasn't clear. I'm not supporting a mass purge in one single poll. Indeed, we should analyze the articles one by one. But as I said, I'm not going to do this myself, at least for now. GeeJayK (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment that many of the so-called BreadTube articles are puff pieces and have questionable relevance here. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Can this dross finally die now? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)