RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Essay:Guide to SJWs: What They Are

Essay:Guide to SJWs: What They Are | Result: Keep

Essay:Guide to SJWs: What They Are (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. So some idiot wrote something stupid on DeviantArt. So what? It might well have been written as a joke. But it really doesn't matter if it was or not. The person who wrote it is just some nobody on the internet, not anybody important or influential. Their stupid rant isn't going to get anybody to change their minds about anything. Far too much time and energy was asted on this at the Saloon Bar and it certainly doesn't merit its own article of any kind. Spud (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Gives up halfway through. The fact an obscure idiot wrote isn't the problem for me. Its incomplete and that's worse. Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Yes, essays should be kept except under extenuating circumstances: legal issues, primarily. Bongolian (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
2. It's an essay, we don't delete essays unless the creator wants them gone (and in this case the creator (@CJ-Moki is a sysop). Christopher (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
3. After thinking it over (and getting sidetracked) I'm voting keep. GrammarCommie (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
4. It isn't a troll essay.-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Leave it be. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Not a troll essay and longer than three sentences.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 03:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Goat

So, what's the rules on essays? I'd think essays would be deleted only under serious circumstances like pedophilia promotion, not because the content matter is something you personally find pointless and a waste of time. I think this one is pointless at best, harmless at worst, but we haven't deleted other pointless crap before especially the stuff User:Elvis is King farts out. This is a special case... how? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This. Also, we're a site dedicating to refuting crankery, and this screed posted to dA is pure crankery, so... TheMyon (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Obsession with crankery is crankery. Refuting obvious bullshit creates more useless male bovine excrement. --Some random Smith (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, the subject matter is well within RW's bounds for debunking bullshit and crankery. On the other hand, the essay appears to be abandoned so... GrammarCommie (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's abandoned, it's up to the original author to delete it. It's not grounds for AfD though. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You've convinced me, I changed my vote to keep.GrammarCommie (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• How about another option, a template for Stupid Useless Essays that we don't delete because We Don't Delete Essays? --Some random Smith (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  1. Unless we put quality standards on what exactly is a "stupid useless essay", this is not a good idea. What might be stupid and useless for one may not be for the other. We already have a category called "drive by essays" for obviously terrible essays like those screaming in all caps in buzzwords. Honestly, if you don't like useless but otherwise harmless essays, why should you care? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)