RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Anomaly

Jonathan Anomaly | Result:AfD that is likely invalid with attempted vote rigging

Jonathan Anomaly (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was proposed for deletion before. See here for that discussion.

Delete

1. I follow eugenics stuff pretty closely and I've literally never heard of this guy. Also, the page says that Anomaly is an assistant professor at the University of San Diego, but he isn't listed anywhere on the University of San Diego's website. On his personal website he describes himself as a "former academic". He wrote an article on eugenics in an obscure bioethics journal. Why should we give attention to some random nobody? The original creator of the page has been banned from RationalWiki. I think the page should be deleted. Pangloss (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Anomaly is a nobody. deleteMiyazaki me away (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
3. Delete. PistolPete (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. The votes for delete seem suspicious as fuck, plus this is an article with a history of being put up for AfD by banned trolls. Plutocow (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
2. I've seen people using him as an actual reference on Wikipedia. He is relevant. Also, what Plutocow said. GeeJayK (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
3. See last AfD, nothing has changed since then, including the trolling it seems. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
4. LongStylus (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
5. This message paid for by the Committee to End Spurious AfDs. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
6. The person who put this up is autopatrolled, so likely isn't a sock. However, the other 5 have good points. Also, @Cosmikdebris - . Andrew5 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

   What do you mean "the other 5 have good points"? I didn't even say anything, I just put my signature. LongStylus (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

   I guess this is in a similar vein to "per all". --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 16:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

   Andrew5 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

   Ah, I see. LongStylus (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

7. The fact that the page was created by that twat Oliver D. Smith is irrelevant. Spud (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
8. if this new user voting charade keeps up then we should impose some voting restrictions. I still assume the afd creator doesn't quite know the original mike Smith crap however. Motion for instant archival.🍜 --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 16:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

   This is our first troll AFD in two months and our second in nine. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Goat

1. This AFD has had terrible formatting. Andrew5 (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Pangloss (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) and Miyazaki me away (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) (only 2 edits) are likely the same person. Most of Pangloss' edits are on eugenics. They are not being honest Anomaly is not notable - he recently published a book with a mainstream publisher on eugenics which is popular in the HBD/identitarian/alt-right online communities: https://www.routledge.com/Creating-Future-People-The-Ethics-of-Genetic-Enhancement/Anomaly/p/book/9780367203122 I also doubt Pangloss's claim they have not heard of Anomaly before and it's possible Anomaly is in communication with Pangloss and got them to make this deletion request. 134.209.183.141 (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

   stfu smith --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 16:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)