|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Fraktur
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Fraktur | Result: Keepish[edit]
Keep[edit]
- To me, at least, neo-nazi bullshit is on-mission. Rationalwiki is my best source for IDing things about those scumbags without the risk of tacit endorsement. Helpful reference for deconstructing authoritarianism. Ikanreed (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Could do with being a lot more on-point, but is on-mission as is IMO - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's a fine little article about something interesting that's on point. You people and your fucking obsession with deleting content. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- If moving it into another article isn't an option, then I have to change to keep.--Miekal 14:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since it seems I was wrong to think that the content could be moved elsewhere, I have to say "keep" too. Spud (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete[edit]
- Off mission Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
#There is a missioney link here, and so it's a weak delete at best, but as is, the article gives the impression we're talking about this just because for a little while the Nazis liked it but then stopped liking it. Is this really a big neo-nazi or Nazi thing? If not I don't see the need for us to have an entire article for it versus merging it into an existing article about the nazis..--Miekal 14:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't get the impression that either of you even read this article. I'm sticking up for it because this is a perfect example of why AfD gives dipshits like Mikal a hardon. It's too easy to use. "The Nazi link tenuous at best" Care to justify that? It's at least a misstatement of fact. "Is this really a big neo-nazi or Nazi thing?" It's a Nazi thing. I see. You really didn't read the article. Neo-nazi? Who knows. I removed that from the article because it's someone's opinion. "I don't see the need for us to have an entire article. ..." Yes, of course you don't. But why not? Nutty Roux (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Which is why i supported moving it into some other article if there was one, but you know, accuse me of just wanting all of it purged, that works too. I don't think the topic itself warrants an entire article just for itself, it's just a font type; a pretty fonttype that the nazis used, but in the end it's still just a font and any information on it could be used to improve one of the nazisim articles instead of being locked away on some page people will probably never find. --Miekal 14:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am accusing you of wanting it all purged, insofar as I take by your use of hyperbole that you know exactly what I'm talking about. Taking it further, I'm sure you'd be a lot more comfortable on a RationalWiki that was nothing but talk pages. "... but in the end it's still just a font and ..." This about sums up the quality of your analysis. Oh and "See also" is a thing. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is indeed a thing, but then you have to hope people will click through to it. I don't want this content purged, i want it put somewhere it has a better chance of being found without somebody looking for it directly or clicking a see also link. I think the content belongs on RW, just not with it's own article--Miekal 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Then you have no idea how an encyclopedia and its tools work. I can't help you except to say that "See also" is exactly how encyclopedias deal with this situation, not by cramming more and more related ephemera into main articles. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is indeed a thing, but then you have to hope people will click through to it. I don't want this content purged, i want it put somewhere it has a better chance of being found without somebody looking for it directly or clicking a see also link. I think the content belongs on RW, just not with it's own article--Miekal 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am accusing you of wanting it all purged, insofar as I take by your use of hyperbole that you know exactly what I'm talking about. Taking it further, I'm sure you'd be a lot more comfortable on a RationalWiki that was nothing but talk pages. "... but in the end it's still just a font and ..." This about sums up the quality of your analysis. Oh and "See also" is a thing. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Which is why i supported moving it into some other article if there was one, but you know, accuse me of just wanting all of it purged, that works too. I don't think the topic itself warrants an entire article just for itself, it's just a font type; a pretty fonttype that the nazis used, but in the end it's still just a font and any information on it could be used to improve one of the nazisim articles instead of being locked away on some page people will probably never find. --Miekal 14:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't get the impression that either of you even read this article. I'm sticking up for it because this is a perfect example of why AfD gives dipshits like Mikal a hardon. It's too easy to use. "The Nazi link tenuous at best" Care to justify that? It's at least a misstatement of fact. "Is this really a big neo-nazi or Nazi thing?" It's a Nazi thing. I see. You really didn't read the article. Neo-nazi? Who knows. I removed that from the article because it's someone's opinion. "I don't see the need for us to have an entire article. ..." Yes, of course you don't. But why not? Nutty Roux (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Goat[edit]
- Partially merge and redirect to alphabet? That article could use expansion on political and religious implications on the choice of script. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 16:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have merged much of the text into alphabet now, and expanded that article with discussion of the use of alphabets as political and religious symbols. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 17:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why did you do that? A typeface is not an "alphabet". I'm moving it back. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)