RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Far right

Far right | Result: Keep

Far right (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. The article is heavily unsourced, and has a heavy listicle. That's not to mention the political science problem with completely ignoring the libertarian-authoritarian axis, among other things. Vee (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Since we deleted the other one. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 11:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
3. This is a pretty low quality listicle. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. I do not think citing "the far left article was deleted" is sufficent because the two need to be evaluated on a case by case basis; also, the far right is much more missional than the far left. Andrew5 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Not seeing a clearly-argued mission-based reason for the delete. Obviously, I could be persuaded if one were presented.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
3. This one is in desperate need of cleanup and more citations, but is definitely missional and should be improved, not deleted. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Christopher (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Bongolian (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
6. Documenting the ideology and trends of the far-right is critical, particularly considering their increasing influence in many countries. The article itself requires expansion and further sources in certain sections, but overall should be kept. Wisconcom (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Goat

So I just thought I rant here for a moment about this deletion suggestion.

Two of the deletion votes are about the fact that the article could be better. Sure, that is absolutely true (and probably true of every article). But if an article is on-mission - but not up to par - then the solution is to improve it. I understand that there will be editors who think it could be improved but don't want to put in the work to actually improve it. But, if that is the case, then leaving it alive until someone who actually wants to improve it comes along would seem to be the better solution. Furthermore, putting time into debating whether or not to delete an obviously on-mission article - instead of using that same effort to improve it - might not be the best use of editors' time.

Meanwhile we have articles like, for example, Heart Attack Grill which are are so bizarrely off-mission that it beggars belief.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Heart Attack Grill is probably missional.Andrew5 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)