RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/John Duffield

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

John Duffield | Result: Deleted[edit]

John Duffield (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)


  1. Time to dredge up some references and make this turd sparkle. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


  1. This article is Encyclopedia Dramatica quality. Write something sober and considered or this needs killing. The talk page is a disgrace. We are not here to target people. David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    And the subject has complained. Maybe it's a list of valid concerns, but if so then it seriously needs writing to that effect - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. ^--Miekal 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. It does read as if someone's got a personal vendetta. Scream!! (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. The sources are poor: Mostly there are internet forums with little (to nothing) to link JD to the writer. The Amazon site just is. There doesn't stand to be any improvement, so I don't think there is any reason to keep. And the above. Sterile (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Delete, let physicsBlog and Gizmodo keep a log of this crap so he can try to sue them. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    Wait. Didn't you write it, defend it, and taunt him — Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs
    I wrote it and defended it till he decided to try and get my personal information in order to harass me. It's not worth it on a wiki. I see less provocation than what can be see in the articles for ShockofGod, Ed poor, and VenomFangX. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    What do those articles have to do with the price of fish? There's nothing unreasonable about asking for the identity of a gutless anonymous editor taunting you. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    The price of fish? It was to show the level of snark and insults in pages which have already existed for years. Where the hell did you get fish? Why not is pretty much what is expressed in the doxing page. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    This. - Grant (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    Context does help. I think it's a legitimate question when I get crap for being insulting when dozens of other pages have existed for years with much more insulting (and sometimes more invasive) information with brainstars for quality. Why is this not a legitimate question and a non-sequitur? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    You're right. Why non-seq? Because Nutty. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 08:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Delete and ban editors who start getting into legal discussions with visitors discussing potential litigation. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  7. Delete. Not really notable. - Grant (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  8. Begone already. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  9. I agree that we should delete the page. He's not relevant, his ideas might deserve a sentence or two on another page if they've been mentioned enough places.--TiaC (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    (I've copied TiaC's comment from the Goat section below to this section too to make it easy to keep score on the delete votes) ScepticWombat (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


Maybe collapse into a section in Alternative cosmology? We could just put a quick summery of his theory and a sentence or two debunking it. But yes, the cyberstalking of him across the web should go.--TiaC (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't know what "debunk" means if you think an alternative cosmology can be debunked in one or two sentences. Back in my day, we called that argument by assertion. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
It is surprisingly easy to point out a few glaring issues in a half-baked idea. E.g. "The theory conflicts with numerous astronomical measurements and ignores well-accepted ideas such as conservation of charge."--TiaC (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
How can you tell? There's nothing about what is there is on the page. Just that it exists. Sterile (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
See, that's what you call an argument by assertion. Statements like yours work better when you cite someone credible actually doing the analysis. Is this sloppy thinking and argument the norm among some of the louder new editors? Nutty Roux (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Please tell me where I said not to use references? As noted on the talk page, there are refutations of his ideas out there (In fact, some are even in the references). However, none of them are in the article. As a minor internet kook, one of the best sources would be his own book.--TiaC (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you've put me on ignore. Because obviously I'm the one in an echo chamber and not you. You are amazingly antagonistic, don't actually contribute outside of attacking people, and ignore anyone who disagrees with you or your methods.
--TiaC (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I am certainly antagonistic to morons and my days of contributing as a board member are over, though I'm still and officer. I hope you're in the minority in thinking I don't contribute anything. You've been here for s little over two months. I've apparently pissed away years of good will and being well regarded to fight with people like you, but it's worth it if I can bully enough of you into leaving. My motivation ought to be pretty clear. To say that I ignore people who disagree with me or my "methods" when it's pretty obvious I smell blood and can't help myself when people like you run your mouths, is a lttle weird, don't you think? I wish I could ignore you. I really do. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
So harassment's fine when you're doing it. Got it.--TiaC (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Sterile's point is still valid here, in that those sources aren't exactly credible. While having said refutations present would be better than the current status quo, it's still not a good solution compared to just deleting it and moving on. - Grant (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's another perspective: if these ideas aren't notable enough for any serious refutations to be published, why should we have an article about them at all? - Grant (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should delete the page. He's not relevant, his ideas might deserve a sentence or two on another page if they've been mentioned enough places.--TiaC (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)