Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Rabbit's foot

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Rabbit's foot | Result: keep[edit]

Rabbit's foot (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)


  1. Obviously missional, an actually cliched superstition - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. (Started the article). Yes, this is starting out based on Wikipedia -- I thought we were allowed, and at any rate, it's based on an older version of the Wikipedia article; apparently no one's been interested enough to turn it to the usual sludge over there. The subject itself seems fairly obviously missional. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 03:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Obvious keep. An effort needs to be made to differentiate it from the Wikipedia article it's based on, but it's clearly a topic we should have an article on. --Marlow (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. I can't judge the plagiarism bits, but reading the article wins me over. MarmotHead (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


  1. Plagiarized from Wikipedia; also some issues with content (US-centric), which could be fixed, I suppose... Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


  1. Killing bunnies for their feet is wrong! *Mean face* Zero (talk - contributions) 17:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Don't copy anything word-for-word from Wikipedia. Ever. Not current versions of articles. Not old versions of articles. Not deleted articles. Not stuff from people's sandboxes that they never made into completed articles. Nothing. Smerdis, if you haven't already, rewrite all the bits you plagiarized in your own words. Then, I'd support keeping it. Spud (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    Not deleted articles. Dead wrong there. We have some lovely articles which are rescues from Wikipedia deletia. Your proposed rules are made-up and ill-considered - David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is licensed with Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License; in particular, 'Attribution' is missing, and RW is CC-BY-SA, which may mean that 'Share Alike' is also breached? Or perhaps I misunderstood something? I don't mind 'copying' things from anywhere, copying is good. But that is not the same thing as 'plagiarized' content... Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Spud is talking made-up BS - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)