2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

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 PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $9223.37Goal: $10000

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Disagreeing by deleting

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Disagreeing by deleting | Result: it's a joke, kids. also: moved[edit]

Disagreeing by deleting (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

THIS WAS A JOKE. BLAME PACWALKER

Delete[edit]

  1. 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 five seven over 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)
  2. 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]

  1. 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)
  2. It's a form of censorship, so of course it should stay, but perhaps with a different title. BicyclewheelModerator 10:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Either rename it to Internet censorship or just merge into Censorship. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 15:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. 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. BicyclewheelModerator 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)
  • "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)