RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Olympic Games

Olympic Games | Result: deader than [insert World Record broken this year]

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

Delete

1. This page is currently not missional and has only snark for content. Bongolian (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
2. This page is currently not missional and doesn't even have snark for content. It's just plain bad, and stub as a ***** toe. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Goat

Is it really necessary to open an Afd for a silly, tiny stub? Just delete it. We don't need Wikipedia levels of bureaucracy around here. I think there could probably be a missional article about the Games, covering things like how they've become a corporate sponsor festival, how they're a bottomless money pit that tax dollars get thrown down, and maybe something about PEDs. Deleting a basically content-free stub doesn't prevent someone from creating a real article, of course. --Ymir (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

True, but we're not exactly drowning in new articles either (stub or no), and it's always better to defer to the mob. Worst case, nobody replies in a day or so, and then you do things Ymirs way. What's to lose with having the patience for due process? It's a Wiki, not an FPS shooter. Things don't have to happen instantly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's just a waste of time and energy. If someone really really thinks it was a great article they can ask for it to be undeleted. "Due process"? We're not a court. You seem to care a lot more about articles being deleted than people being blocked. How come you aren't demanding automatic community review of blocks? --Ymir (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Whoah, now I'm suddenly not as bad as just for supporting the idea of amicable and open communal proceedings? "Gee, that's a nice fallacy, mister! I'll pet it and walk it every day, promise!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)