RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Maulana Karenga
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Maulana Karenga | Result: No votes for Keep after 2 weeks. Deleted.[edit]
Delete[edit]
- Stub (literally a singular paragraph) for over 14 years. He might be notable / missional, but it would require a content expansion so bad that honestly deleting it and allowing re-creation (WP:TNT
) is better for the article. -- Andrew5 (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC) - Bongolian (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Unlikely to be expanded anytime soon. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be deleted. And, yes, it could be recreated. And there was absolutely no need to cite Wikipedia policy to say that. Spud (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- No one bothered to write a RationalWiki policy on it. Perhaps you could do that? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- We don't need a policy for everything. We are not Wikipedia nor do we wish to emulate Wikipedia. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- But then it's harder to justify it. Plus, GeeJayK has also used it. (There was another example but I decided not to use it.) Andrew5 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- No it bloody doesn't make it harder to justify sod all. Articles have been deleted and then new articles created about the same topic here before without much drama. Now for the umpteenth time, stop citing the policies of another wiki all the frigging time. Spud (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I feel when ever a RW sysop says something, everyone agrees but the second a non-sysop does everyone jumps on them. Maybe it’s just an illusion, but this feels biased. Going back to USHA’s drama, now I realize he did have a point. Spud, it would be helpful if you also went out after others for doing the same. Then at least it would be consistent. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- There's no 'bias' here, Andrew. We don't need standards for deletion or recreation. End of discussion. Jake Holmesyell at me 16:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I feel when ever a RW sysop says something, everyone agrees but the second a non-sysop does everyone jumps on them. Maybe it’s just an illusion, but this feels biased. Going back to USHA’s drama, now I realize he did have a point. Spud, it would be helpful if you also went out after others for doing the same. Then at least it would be consistent. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- No it bloody doesn't make it harder to justify sod all. Articles have been deleted and then new articles created about the same topic here before without much drama. Now for the umpteenth time, stop citing the policies of another wiki all the frigging time. Spud (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- But then it's harder to justify it. Plus, GeeJayK has also used it. (There was another example but I decided not to use it.) Andrew5 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- We don't need a policy for everything. We are not Wikipedia nor do we wish to emulate Wikipedia. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- No one bothered to write a RationalWiki policy on it. Perhaps you could do that? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- This has had 14+ years to be expanded and it, at least to my eyes, isn't even on mission as there is not enough to meet "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism" criteria.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
