RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Peter Frost

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Peter Frost | Result: Deleted by board[edit]

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

Delete[edit]

  1. Minimal sourcing, notably a critical article (5 years old) in Pharos but little else. Is mainly known for the sexual selection pigmentation hypothesis. While this is a fringe viewpoint among scientists it is certainly not pseudoscience. He wrote a 2023 article on cuckoldry but I am not sure why that is relevant (nevertheless it is mentioned). Not much else. He owns a crummy Substack. I vote to delete. Remains unclear why he got an article in the first place. 98.98.66.9 (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC) 98.98.66.9 (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep in mind that RW does not have a notability policy.
Regards, Avarice   23:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Missional, and we have plenty of stubs. Why focus on this one? If we end up having to settle, then we have to settle, but that's no reason to chop it now.
    Regards, Avarice   23:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    Who is "we"? You're a recent suspicious account (created in Feb 2025 but act as if you are running this place...) and there is evidence to suggest you are a sockpuppet of @Ex-BoN Lurker. Very similar writing style (also your page states: "Mostly a lurker, but an account seemed like a good idea.") while User:Ex-BoN Lurker: "I'm here to read and ponder about articles lurk, and clean up typos, and undo naughty edits"), you were the only account who showed up to defend Ex-BoN Lurker, while your editing patterns and fixation with keeping HBD articles up is identical. I don't think you are a good faith account. Unfortunately, there's virtually no moderation on this wiki anymore to prevent infiltration. 38.248.90.132 (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    We being RationalWiki, here. AFAIK I have never defended Lurker, but instead pointed out that a flurry of IPs wasn't exactly making good arguments against them. And I have no fascination with keeping HBD articles, as much as I see no reason to delete them. Also keep in mind that you are not being agreed with in your criticisms of our HBD articles and some random user so much as you are being ignored. Have a nice day!
    Regards, Avarice   14:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  2. BoN bullies should have no say in what articles to delete. BobJohnson (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  1. shouldn't 'Articles for deletion' be a Sysop only privilege? BONs have taken to using it a lot methinks. Scream!! (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  2. I don't know. The guy seems to be missional, but the article is shit and I doubt that someone will be interested at improving it soon. The armchair PTSD diagnosis and the cuckoldry section should be deleted though. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
    My first impression is that this person's "worth", if anything, peaked in the mid 2000s-early 2010s. Still a little active nowadays in Substack / Blogspot but no one seems to notice. Seems to be associated with folks like Steve Sailer, Hbdchick (who is both no longer active and no longer has a main article), and the like. He had a Wikipedia article at one point, but it was deleted in 2014, because he wasn't notable at all.
    I'm kind of neutral on this, because it's a minor figure of 2010s crank Internet, that probably has an article because RW is all about the crank of 2010s Internet. Rather than a hard delete, this article could be merged into the racialism article, which is where Hbdchick eventually went. But BoN fuckers shouldn't be able to push this sort of shit, there's far worse articles out there to clean up. :p BobJohnson (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
(a) The article is almost a stub and awful. (b) It was created by a banned editor. (c) It's a troll-magnet. I am not sure why it isn't removed. If it was about a person not writing about HBD it would have been deleted already but suspiciously in the last few months since this wiki has had legal issues, new accounts have appeared (some promoted to sysop status) who fixate with HBD and always vote to keep these articles. Who are these people? Why did they show up at this time, and always vote no to delete? 208.115.193.120 (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't fucking matter if it was created by a banned editor. Please stop using that as a reason for deletion. And you're hardly in a position to talk about suspicious users, BoN. Spud (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
But, the banned editor was banned . . . by a banned editor! Shock! Horror! Confusion in the streets!
Regards, Avarice   13:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, BoN, you realize that you are part of the problem, right? Despite the poor state of the article, given obvious attempts by the Hbd community to bring this Wiki down, my response for now is "fuck off, twat!" and just hold steady until certain figures stop behaving like total dickwads. I don't give bullies what they want. BobJohnson (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  1. Shouldn't this be deleted? Not confident enough to do it myself. @DuceMoosolini, Plutocow, and Christopher
    Regards, Avarice   19:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    I didn't get your ping, and neither will Plutocow or Duce, because you have a signature template.
    I know no more than you about the ongoing legal issues, I'm not on the board. Presumably Duce would have already deleted this afd if it needed to go. Christopher (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    re:Ping: right, I keep forgetting. Either way, I only (attempted to) ping based on who was actively deleting, not who would have any certain idea about what to delete. Thanks for the effort, at least.
    Regards, Avarice   20:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think it matters right now. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)