RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Helen Caldicott
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Helen Caldicott | Result: Keep[edit]
Delete[edit]
- Pitiful stub; whoever votes "keep" better expand the article, a lot. 💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Unless she suddenly becomes relevant again, no one will ever expand this. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
(talk • stalk) 23:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep[edit]
Hi, I'm your standard keep user. When I see a shitty artice, we both know, it's a shitty article. I'm never going to fix this article, but I hope somebody will. But in the end, we both know nobody will ever do so. I mean it's missional. So every missional article on this wiki stays. In fact, everyone on this wiki should pump out 20 shitty articles a day, because this is what this wiki needs, so long as the topic is missional. I never looked at the article.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara (talk • stalk) 23:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)- We've deleted missional articles before, because they weren't good. We don't want to create a bunch of shitty articles for the sake of missionality, we want to create a moderate amount of articles that can start out small, but we expand later. The story would be different if this article was just created. But it's not. This article is three years old, and has barely been expanded past its starting point. No one has any desire to expand it, so we should either scrap it or expand it right now. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I made this post to be an asshole.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara (talk • stalk) 23:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I'm kind of bad at that whole "understanding sarcastic text" thing. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I made this post to be an asshole.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara
- We've deleted missional articles before, because they weren't good. We don't want to create a bunch of shitty articles for the sake of missionality, we want to create a moderate amount of articles that can start out small, but we expand later. The story would be different if this article was just created. But it's not. This article is three years old, and has barely been expanded past its starting point. No one has any desire to expand it, so we should either scrap it or expand it right now. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's [1] an unexpanded stub, but it's not [2] hopelessly stubbish or [3] useless. Considering that the top article online is Wikipedia's hagiograpahy, this article should exist as a counterweight if nothing else. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 19:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Per. We shouldn't delete stubs if they're substantial enough, even if they remain as is. In this case, there is no reason to bend backward and delete sufficiently lengthy stubs. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 20:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC) - Useful and informative, no coherent reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Same reasons as Fuzzy. Christopher (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)