RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Jonathan McIntosh

Jonathan McIntosh | Result: ded

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

Delete

1. Questionable missionality, magnet for random axe-grinding, should be a passing mention on Anita Sarkeesian at best, queries as to why this living person article is even here on talk page go unanswered - David Gerard (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
2. ded Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
3. Merge anything useful to the Anita article and delete the rest. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
4. -DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 19:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
5. —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 22:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
6. If we're not going to have an article that addresses and criticizes the subject's factually incorrect statements and beliefs, we shouldn't have one at all. PB (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Half of the things on this wiki are targets for axe grinding. It's the nature of the beast. 76.5.20.117 (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Entirely on-mission, just needs work. Applesauce (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   If you can provide work for it, that would make the case better - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Article is completely missional, as it's related to Gamergate and radical feminism. It could be greatly improved with more examples of his nuttery. In fact, why don't I do that right now. PBfreespace (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   "he doesn't like capitalism!!" well I'm convinced. no wait - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   That entire section was you coming up with bizarre interpretations of individual tweets from long discussions so you could find something to object to. It's ridiculous axe grinding and - and this is the important bit - well below what we expect of a living person article - David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

3. AnonASP (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. Strip Pbfreespace's gatoring out of the article. What remains can either be expanded with more relevant & reasonable content or merged into the Anita Sarkeesian entry. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Is there anything that isn't? If you take that stuff out there's no "there" there - David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   The article as of July 2016, before Pbfreespace3 pooped all over it - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   I'm upset at being treated this way, having my entire edits on the article (which composed most of it) be deleted, and being called names to add insult to injury. PBfreespace (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   Maybe you should write better. Just because you have these feelings doesn't dismiss the fact that your edits were bad.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 03:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   How were they bad edits? Every single thing that was written there was factually correct. What part do you disagree with? I'm curious to see where exactly you disagree with the text. PB (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   If this is a serious question, then you haven't been paying attention. Let's be real, everyone who has an online pretense would have an article if we didn't have a boundary on ax grinding. People say questionable stuff time to time. Reserve rational wiki articles for people who actually deserve to have one.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 03:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   I've detailed precisely why they were bad: (1) you're nutpicking at individual tweet level (2) with wild surmise based on the text of a tweet (3) to assert fairly normative positions are noteworthily bizarre. Also (4) you're a terrible editor - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

   Just reverted to the July 2016 version - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Don't give a rat's ass either way. Effin' "Gamergate" can go hang for all I care. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)