RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/New Apologetics

New Apologetics | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. Until cites, not worth it. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 07:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Die die die die die die die die Blacke (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep

1. Seems to be a valid, vaguely missional subject. Just need cites and snark.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
2. As the Orwellite above says, it's missional, it just needs expansion. Cites and examples especially. Bicycle^wheel 08:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

   Orwellite? Uncertain if compliment. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 09:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

   WP:The Road to Wigan Pier. Bicycle^wheel 09:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

   Be thankful I am not Keeping Aspidistras Flying (much).--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

   Just as long as you Come Up For Air once in a while.

3. A trivial Google search for "new apologetics" shows the applicability and missionality. Mediocre stub, but clearly on-mission - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Google easily provides sources for this article. This is exactly the type of group we mean to cover. This article just needs moar work. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
5. This is the type of group that RationalWiki was created to expose. Just needs expansion with sources. Tuxer (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
6. For the reasons listed above. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat

• I would like to plead for a two-day stay of execution. It's a phrase that doesn't really describe a well-unified movement, and I'll admit that what's there now is crap, BUT it's a missional subject that can be salvaged/written for real. I meant to the other day but life plus other RW stoofs of interest. WalkerWalkerWalker 08:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Agree. Sometimes articles take time to develop. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • this one'll take lots of time, seeing as nobody's done any actual developing since the 26th. Bicycle^wheel 17:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerboa

• Shouldn't we generally have a longer interval between the nomination for deletion and the actual wiping off the face off the wiki of a certain topic? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  I think it's supposed to be a week? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  There's a divide between nominal and actual. It tends to be defined by everyone going "Seriously? This is garbage" dogpiling the first day. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  Dogpiling is basically RW's speedy delete template. Heh. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)