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/EvoWiki/RationalWiki
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/EvoWiki/RationalWiki | Result: Deleted[edit]
Delete[edit]
- FFS, yet another pointless Evowiki port. Do we really need a page for Evowiki's bland, dull article about ourselves? Bicyclewheel
23:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- You finally got the AFD right! "Recent Changes" looked funny there for a while. Dendlai (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- another example of "porting over everything" and not anything useful if there's anything worth covering in ews article on us, put it in our own article--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Doesn't do anything, and doesn't need to be preserved as a redirect - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Compulsive hoarding? Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Pointless shit. Get rid of it. Spud (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep[edit]
- The article itself obviously doesn't add anything new, which the template is clear about on the other hand. If the argument is made that this is preservation for posterity and that it can be seen as a part of a larger body of such, then there's no reason to delete. I'd like to hear FCP's reasoning regarding it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- His argument back in July, when we did loads of these, was "where's the harm?" Bicyclewheel
00:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- His argument back in July, when we did loads of these, was "where's the harm?" Bicyclewheel
- 1: There is no harm. BW's page link would make sense if there was a risk of harm. It's a fucking webpage and its contents pretty much cannot hurt people. 2: I think this is comparable to preserving parts of RWW -- documenting how RW was seen by other skeptics at the time seems a somewhat useful goal. If the page isn't preserved here, it will exist nowhere and will be forgotten. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)