RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Doctor's Data

Doctor's Data | Result: Kept

Doctor's Data (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Seven years old, and still a stub. D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
2. —CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 18:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Long and informative enough to be its own article and its relationship with QuackWatch is worth keeping IMO. It sucks we have a stub that's untouched for 7 years but it doesn't mean we should delete it. This isn't like the other stubs we deleted where they have conveyed virtually no information. Counter-arguing with "why don't you expand" sounds too tu quoque so don't do it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
2. All the links necessary for a good article are in the External links. It's [1] an unexpanded stub, but it's not [2] hopelessly stubbish or [3] useless. On net, it should stay. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 19:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Entirely missional and more informative than no article, no reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Its not that much of a stub in my opinion Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. Missional, but still a stub. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)