RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Nothing to hide argument

Nothing to hide argument | Result: keep

Nothing to hide argument (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Not fertile ground for a developed article Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep

1. Why would you want to censor the content of this article? Do you have something to hide, hmm? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
2. Improve, not delete.--Arisboch (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
3. Plenty of room to improve. For instance, it's not explained why it's a fallacy. Bicycle^wheel 19:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
4. Improve not delete. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 19:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
5. On the ground that it will be improved, as this is an actual argument people make. a lot. --Miekal 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
6. I see this frequently, and discuss topics that naturally lead to it even more frequently, and I always have trouble articulating why it's wrong. Improve, don't delete. <3 C^{Sapphire bullets of pure love} 20:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
7. Improve. Do not delete. Argument is used often. --Castaigne (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
8. Improve. Definitely on-mission, and current page isn't crap enough to warrant deletion. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
9. Keep. It's a common(ish) argument and relevant to RationalWiki. There's enough to say about the fallacy for it to warrant its own article. —Bilorv (smells) 17:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
10. Castle. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
11. Keep, as nothing to hide, and add salient examples seen in the wild. MaillardFillmore (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat

• Dam, people've been really keep-y lately. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 19:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Possibly because all the total crap has been deleted? Or maybe it's summer so everyone's, like, mellow. Bicycle^wheel 20:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• The stub is rather insubstantial and I also find it odd to characterise this as an argument that's only relevant to government surveillance. Only a couple of days of days ago we had a RW editor making this argument in favour of doxxing. The stub could be rewritten & expanded but a better starting point might be adding a paragraph or two on this in the privacy article, and then separating that out to its own page if & when it gathers enough content & examples. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• If you are going to keep it, cut the "argument" from the title. At the very least, it will be easier to link.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I tried moving it, but that broke the link in the delete template. After it survives this attempt, the article should live at nothing to hide. MaillardFillmore (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Since there's already a redirect from nothing to hide, is it really that important to change the title? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
      • That redirect is new, an artifact of my aborted attempt to move the article. No big whoop, but the shorter title is still better, IMO. MaillardFillmore (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't see how it's better, to be honest. It's an article about the nothing to hide argument, not about the phrase "nothing to hide". Many instances where the argument is used don't even explicitly mention the phrase. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)