There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Disagreeing by deleting
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Disagreeing by deleting | Result: it's a joke, kids. also: moved[edit]
THIS WAS A JOKE. BLAME PACWALKER
Delete[edit]
- No sane person could believe that this article is correct; as such, we should rid ourselves of it. PacWalker 03:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Sucker count: now up to
fivesevenover 9000.- fffffffssssssssssssss. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 16:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC) sneaky bastard
- Definitely not expressing my disagreement with disagreeing by deleting by trying to delete it or anything... ;) PacWalker 16:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- To clarify: this was an (apparently overly) elaborate joke. PacWalker 03:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely not expressing my disagreement with disagreeing by deleting by trying to delete it or anything... ;) PacWalker 16:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- fffffffssssssssssssss. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 16:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC) sneaky bastard
- While guilty of said crime myself, I do not see any missionality to this article. Cast it into the void. --Madman (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
- You get bonus points for falling for it hook, line, sinker, and fisherman. PacWalker 03:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep[edit]
- I think it has a place, as it can be seen as a sort of logical fallacy. Zero (talk - contributions) 04:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's a form of censorship, so of course it should stay, but perhaps with a different title. Bicyclewheel
10:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Either rename it to Internet censorship or just merge into Censorship. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 15:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. Censorship on Internet forums, maybe? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- merging into Censorship looks like a good idea. Bicyclewheel
19:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The article isn't *incorrect*, it's definitely a thing that happens and keeping everyone alert to it is good. If you must merge, Burning the Evidence would be a better destination. MatsFan (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Goat[edit]
- This is very much a thing - but this is not the title for this. --Miekal 04:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the tile is... not intuitive. "Censorship" may not be the right word though.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- What instead? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Argument By/through/other Censorship?" The point is it's "I'm correct because nobody else disagrees (because i removed all dissent)".--Miekal 18:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I like Argument by censorship. Moved and archived! ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 03:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)