RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Deepity

Deepity | Result: keep, also keep

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

Delete

1. Some dude's friend's daughter? It's a joke, no academic recognition or credibility, no proof that anyone actually makes these statements in their "meaningless" sense. Rational1 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   You're an idiot. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   You may be right but that's not an argument Rev. Also, perhaps consider cutting back the face palming a little or you'll end up concussed.

   (EC)That said, did Rational1 just refer to Daniel Dennett as "some dude"? ScepticWombat (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Kindly counter each and every part of my point. For parts that are incorrect - explain, for parts that are correct - say that you agree with me and make the required changes to the article. It's very easy to call someone an idiot. Rational1 (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   See the section below, Rational1... ScepticWombat (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   How clumsy of me — here's my two cents on what you're trying to get across. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   You guys have clumsy, vague, broad articles that you can point to in almost any and all cases? Rational1 (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Hey, stop hacking my webcam! How else would you know I'm "clumsy, vague, broad"? ScepticWombat (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Engage in constructive talk, I do not like this. This is supposed to be an intellectual space and not an hostile place. Rational1 (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. High google ranking article on mission-related neologism. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   You can't just make up stuff and keep it just because of high ranking. Rational1 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Hey cool, I didn't even know we had a concern troll (or bait) template. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   The moar you know! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

2. Definitely keep. The Weasel makes excellent points as to why. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Good neologism that describes a lot of New Agey scam artist "philosophy." MyNameIsMudd (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Kindly provide links to these "New Agey scam artist philosophy" that you are talking about. Rational1 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   The article on bullshit cited at the end of this RW article already specifically mentions Deepak Chopra... The quote in the section on protection crystals in our article on crystal woo is arguably also an example. Not to mention that this style of rhetoric is par for the course for all kinds of gurus, see for instance WikiQuote's section on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for just one example. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Why aren't these links and these sentences mentioned in the article? Rational1 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Wait! I know this one! It's because of media bias, right? Oh, and the RW article already cites the article I linked to. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   It doesn't cites the wikiQuotes by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and that's what I was talking about. Rational1 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   I was merely demonstrating how quickly and easily I could find examples of "New Agey scam artist "philosophy"", "kindly", of course. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Then why don't you find a lot of them and edit the article to include them, thereby making some progress? Rational1 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Why don't you stop and consider or try looking stuff up and perhaps adding them to the article before you start just asking questions? ScepticWombat (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   It is a completely made up concept, with no credibility, you adding those links and references would make the article a bit stronger. My stance remains the same. I ask you to include those to improve the article just because ever since my first day here, it looks like we discuss a lot but little to no changes are actually made to the articles. ^{— Unsigned, by: Rational1 / talk / contribs}

   Yeah, strange that... ScepticWombat (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

4. 

—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 17:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Per Weasel and CBF.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
2. -💠💿☝️ (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Forgot to vote.

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)