RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Junk Article

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Junk Article[edit]

Junk Article (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log) Test Deletion Article Zero (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Keep. Well written and informative. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Keep obviously on-mission, with a bit of work could be gold. SophieWilderModerator 20:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Cute. Real cute. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. This is the most thorough exploration of pseudoscience and authoritarianism on the wiki. Deleting this is like deleting the mission itself. MESSIAH OF DOOM Be judged by your suicidal desire Dolan.png 12:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Don't delete It's VERIFIABLE and NPOV! The close-minded so called skeptics here are obviously BIASED against Junk Article! I will take this all the way to ARBCOM! I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki! Leuders (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    Drink! Zero (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. It makes every single gold article combined look like something out of Kendoll's mind in comparison. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg An example of the downfall of humanity, and will lead to World War III 19:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  7. Obvious and unequivocal keep. Not worth a bucket of whale milk in Rotterdam, but something intrigues me about the process of the dialectic involved, the subtle movements of breath and counter-breath that infuse every word of the article’s rhythm. There have been too many attempts lately to drum up opposition to articles like this that seem vacuous on the surface but conceal a winding fractalesque labyrinth of truth in their depths. And yet, when one investigates further, it all comes out bleached in the wash. Suffice it to say, this article is sufficiently metamodern to retain a place among the best. Or, as Zhān Xiànzhōng himself once put it, »天生萬物以養人，人無一善以報天，殺殺殺殺殺殺殺«. Could any man have argued otherwise? I rest my case. 18.189.109.42 (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

  1. Delete. No relevant references and the title capitalizes the second (common) word. The latter is unforgivable. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    Plus, it means that the page for my neo-psychedelia band "Junk Article" is gonna have to be located at the clumsy "Junk Article (band)". Now who will want to listen to my jams????? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 08:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Delete (Alternatively, Redirect to William S. Burroughs or Heroin.) Sprocket J Cogswell Talk to Sprocket 14:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    Junk is good baby, no? SophieWilderModerator 16:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Delete Junk Article proves the existence of God and if not deleted, would cause RationalWiki to promptly disappear in a poof of logic. Bismarck (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. Can we still vote "goat" on this page? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. PENIS PENIS PENIS LOL JK - David Gerard (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. I am unamused. You are all assholes. However, you already knew this. EDIT: Oh, ha. Yup, I was totally taken in.--Castaigne (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Funspace?--TemplarJLS (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. Funspace? This r SRS BZNS! SophieWilderModerator 19:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Junk_Article&oldid=1391275"