RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/NotPoliticallyCorrect

NotPoliticallyCorrect | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. According to the owner of the blog, and someone else the article was written by Michael Coombs impersonating an ANTIFA (ANTIFAGuy); also user "RaceRealist88" was an impersonation of notpoliticallycorrect, likely also Mike. Despite being a neo-Nazi himself, Mike has spats with other Nazis/white nationalists, then he uses this wiki to attack them while pretending to be ANTIFA.EvilGremlin (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

   None of that makes a compelling case to delete the article. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

   Non-notability? It's a random white nationalist/racialist whose only internet presence is a blog and Twitter profile. The article creator only made the article because he had a quarrel or minor dispute with him. Btw, Mike created a RationalWiki article on me, but it was quickly deleted. Pretty much anyone who debates Michael Coombs online he then creates articles on either here, Encylopedia Dramatica or his Nazi-wiki Rightpedia.EvilGremlin (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

   A lot of articles on people we make here are "random white nationalist/racialists". Where are the guidelines that decide who is "notable" or not? in this category, how many names do you recognize? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 20:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

   The article doesn't seem bad to me, so it doesn't really matter whether or not Mikemikev wrote it. սպրիգգինա (խոսել) (ներդրումներ) @ 21:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. It's missional and we have plenty of articles about people who aren't notable here. սպրիգգինա (խոսել) (ներդրումներ) @ 23:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

   Wait, do you want it deleted or not? —Kazitor, ^pending 05:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

   @Kazitor Check the deletion log. FuzzyCatPotato deleted the page, then Spriggina restored it and opened an AfD. CowHouse (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

2. Definitely keep. It's missional and has enough content to stand on. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 20:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
3. It doesn't matter who created it. This page has subsequently been edited by some of our most trusted editors and looks to me like one of our better articles on the alt-right. Spud (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
4. I'll add my vote to the keep camp. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
5. Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. Why does the result say "not notable"? CowHouse (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

   @CowHouse Maybe someone misread "result" as "reason"? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)