RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/David Graeber

David Graeber | Result: Deleted

David Graeber (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Blatantly terrible, atrociously cited, non-missional puff piece written in poorly organized, barely comprehensible English. For more, see the talk.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 14:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
2. I've tried to figure out why this article is here, and I can't. Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
3. It reads like a poorly written Wikipedia article. Nothing in the article looks missional. RationalHindu (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
4. I've actually heard an interview with this man and he makes a somewhat compelling case. That case is more compelling and insightful than this current article. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
5. I hate puff pieces. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
6. If the author turned out to be the subject, I wouldn't be surprised at all. Avida Dollars^{her again} 22:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Hi all, I wrote the article and I didn't realize it would get this much backlash. I have been made aware of making puff articles, and resolve not to do that anymore. However, it appears that the problem extends beyond that, but I'm not very good at understanding what is difficult to read about it. Can y'all expand on what I can change so that I can improve it? Thanks! Forpsionics(talk) 15:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Goat

1. This article made me glaze my eyes several minutes in. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

   I thought that I loved every article written on this site, even the stubs. This article is a definitive rejection of that notion. I could love it with Goat however.Representative Slip Represent yourself 02:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

2. @Forpsionics, the creator of the page, has written several high quality pages on sociologists. It would be helpful if s/he commented here and/or was given the chance to fix it up. Bongolian (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
3. @BongolianOh shoot! I didn't realize it was this bad. Sorry about that. I thought I had sufficiently summarized a synopsis of the books but I guess it didn't quite work out. What can I do to change it?Forpsionics (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

   @Forpsionics: You should take this up with your critics, above, as to how to improve the article sufficiently: @Summa Atheologica, @Cosmikdebris, @RationalHindu, @GrammarCommie, @DuceMoosolini, @Avida Dollars. Bongolian (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

   Hmm I'm a layperson on the subject. Is there a way to at least make the writing more engaging? I found there's a lot of assumed abstract concepts and terms to grasp that I'm clearly not the appropriate audience for. For instance, I got lost at "Graeber [...] dispels a myth that debt is a product of the establishment of currency. In fact, the conception of debt has existed well-beyond any notions of the gold standard, the dollar, or even the coin. Rather, debt has been a function of human relationships and economics throughout even what we may consider to be primitive history, in fact encompassing many human cultures throughout time." --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

4. @LeftyGreenMario: Okay, so you're saying make it understandable to an audience with zero expertise on the subject? I suppose that makes sense. I'll see what I can do to the draft. Also, I'll write a message above. Forpsionics(talk) 15:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)