RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/NephilimFree

NephilimFree | Result: Free no longer

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

Delete

1. And yet another boring article written more than ten years ago about an unknown YouTuber. I wonder if we really need Afds for all these pages of if we can just delete them on sigh. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
2. And almost every goddam reference is to a youtube video that no longer exists. Candidate for speedy deletion. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Insignificant. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 18:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
4. 8.57k subs on YouTube? What? And it's literally, "Very dumb man, existing on the interwebs." multiplied by 100. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 18:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
5. A literal nobody where the only people who ever cared about him were crankliest of cranks, burn it. A somebody. (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
6. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
7. Speedy delete for me, boring. DecemberRebmeced (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep

1. If he's still active on Discord and still bugnuts insane, this page could be useful as "weirdo alert" fodder if nothing else. (He also seems to be one of the main architects of the lunar bukkake hypothesis, so he's at least noteworthy for that.) Luigifan18 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Deleting articles based off of subjective and questionable criteria is starting to get really annoying. Perhaps the userbase here should be more focused on contributing to mainspace than removing already existing articles. We've had a dearth of new article creations, if you want an example. Carthage (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this, it's just, I'm not really sure on the point in having articles on people so obscure (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. As a counterweight to deletion. Carthage (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Goat

1. The criteria we use to determine notability are pretty questionable. Subs alone are an insufficient tool, you also have to take into account video views and wider engagement with the community. NephilimFree may be a "nobody" now, but he wasn't one ten years ago. Carthage (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

   The channel, over 13 years, has had 14 videos break 10k views, of which 2 were posted in the last decade. It's not clear to me that that constitutes having not been a nobody at any point (he certainly is one now, having averaged mid-hundreds views for several years). Even if he was a somebody on YouTube 10 years ago, that doesn't seem to be a less subjective or questionable criterion for notability than what's being appealed to here.

   Besides that, the article does little more than tell me what he believes. Refutations of those beliefs are housed elsewhere on the site, specifically on the articles that address the relevant ideas, which makes it dubious whether this article contributes substantially to the site's mission. It does not contribute to the documentation of crank ideas; there's no ideas in this article that aren't addressed better elsewhere on the site, and a copy-paste of the arguments from those articles to this one would not improve the wiki. Likewise, there's no real analysis or criticism here, either, and again there would be little point in adding any, since such analysis and criticism already exists elsewhere on the wiki; knowing that creationists (say) are vulnerable to objection X, I gain nothing from being told that the particular creationist NephilimFree is vulnerable to objection X. While the site can be improved by the creation of new articles, it can also be improved by the revision or removal of content that is non-missional, redundant, and obscure. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 19:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)