RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of Bernie Sanders

Criticisms of Bernie Sanders | Result: Merged back into the main article

Criticisms of Bernie Sanders (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Keep

1. Why not keep this? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   Laurogeita, the idea isn't that we delete the contents of the article, the idea is that we put it back in the main BS article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   Well it has reduced the edit warring, hasn't it? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   Has it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   Can I answer with a question? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   Uh, aren't you already? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   Am I? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   If you are, would you just answer the original question instead? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   Which question? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   You claimed it has reduced edit warring, and I asked "Has it?", correct? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   What the actual fuck is wrong with you, Laurogeita Hamabost? Why do you try to intentionally obfuscate other people? You seem like a malicious troll masquerading as a respectable user.^{— Unsigned, by: 173.88.182.123 / talk / contribs}

   Easy there big fella! We're just enjoying a little horseplay. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   To answer the initial question; I think it has. But that is more a truthiness than necessarily observed proven fact that would stand up to scientific rigor. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   So then... Ready to move that Keep vote to Merge? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   No. I think this is a good though not perfect solution. Let's keep this for a handful of weeks and see whether edit wars flare up again. If not, problem solved. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   Not gonna happen, buddy. 8 votes to 1 for merging it back in (and anyone who wants to divide the articles again will need more than 8 editors supporting that move from the outset). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with BS article Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Yes, merge. The idea of starting up separate "Criticisms of..."-articles that split from the main article is the type of thing that could use mob support via vote before being enacted. If similar articles were made for other candidates, merge those with their mother article as well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
3. What RBP said.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
4. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Send it back to where it came from, the main Bernie article. Bongolian (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
6. MERGE! PB (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
7. Merge back, otherwise other articles would need the same treatment. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 11:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
8. Merge like lightning - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• All criticism of Saint Bernie shall be kept out of his article by order of the Righteous Cult of Sanders. Anyone wanting this merged back in is a $hill of the Clinton The Evil One. Bicycle^wheel 18:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  Have you gotten your Correct The Record paycheck yet? Mine's still in the mail. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)