RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/RageAfterStorm

RageAfterStorm | Result: No consenus after 10 days

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

Delete

1. Nobody far-right commentator who disappeared in 2017 and this article has no historical value to rationalwiki A somebody. (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Obscure little shit who apparently is only remembered in Internet stinkholes like white supremacist websites and 8chan. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

   Which would make it all the more important to cover her. Missionality, not notability. Carthage (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

3. Complete nobody, can’t be bothered to care. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 18:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
4. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 18:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
5. She only had 8000 Twitter followers before deletion.[1] Bongolian (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
6. A far-right nobody that had no real impact. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
7. ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep

1. Oh come on. She had like 100,000 subscribers at the time of her self-deletion, and this article clearly has "historical value". Archiving this is important, and it's not like there's gonna be another source to easily find this information at other than RationalWiki. (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

   far-right Political commentators are a dime a dozen, you need an article on every fucking one, especially a nobody that disappeared in 2017. A somebody. (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

   I really am okay with having articles on a wide range of far-right figures, yeah. I don't see why there should be a limit on the amount of articles to have and I simply think she's missional. If someone wants to look up information about her, then it's good that this resource exists (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

   Who would want to look up a B-tier version of Faith Goldy and Lauren Southern? A somebody. (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

   Even if you can't understand that, I don't really think that's justification to not have this information archived and easily findable (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

   Again, why should we document this poor excuse for a human being? A somebody. (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

   I think my original post answered that? (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

2. What Natsuki said. Also the difference between 97k and 100k is so miniscule that anyone who argues that it falls below the cut-off would, to me at least, be pointless pedantry. It's more the spirit of the law than the letter. If someone had 99,999 subscribers that also technically falls under the cut-off, but the distinction is so miniscule as to be practically meaningless. Carthage (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
3. I don't "care" about this individual either. But we document a lot of nutcases because they are nutcases (and in many cases I am sure they would actually be delighted if their articles were deleted.) But in this case there might be some historic interest to the net; and if the information is not here then - where? Furthermore nothing is lost by keeping this.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Per above, we shouldn't delete things just because they become irrelevant, keeping things of historical interest is perfectly fine. Plutocow (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

   But surely part of what's under dispute is whether there is anything of historical interest here. "X is a bigot who used to have a YouTube channel and Twitter account. [A collection of tweets]." I don't see what about this is at all interesting. What came of it? What difference did it make? Why did it matter, if it did at all? Frankly, it's not clear to me that the article in its current state is really even missional. No novel crank ideas are being documented here, the article isn't analyzing or refuting anything, it isn't even really offering any critique, just listing tweets. The article's tone is negative, but it's merely presupposing that what's being said is wrong; it's left to other articles on the site to explain why. Maybe nothing is lost, per se, by keeping it, but the same could be said about the text of the Virginia Personhood Bill, or Gareth Young, or fun:time wasting websites, all of which were found lacking. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

   You can find information on the Virginia Personhood Bill and Gareth Young elsewhere. Can you pinpoint similar repositories of information about RageAfterStorm that's not named "RationalWiki"? As cosmik said, this person is still of interest to Neo-Nazis. This article itself could still be a valuable piece of information for anyone who comes across mentions of RAS. Carthage (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

   if you somehow got a hold of the average internet neo nazi and asked them about RageAfterStorm, they would probably be confused and have no idea who the fuck you are talking about. A somebody. (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

   At a glance, I can find no other site mentioning her after 2018 except a single Reddit post, about a dozen archived copies of our page, and what is possibly an archived collection of her YouTube videos. From 2018, I find what appears to be a Nazi’s blog speculating that she’s secretly Jewish. Perhaps I’m simply not sufficiently well-acquainted with the Neo-Nazi web, but I see little to suggest that they are in fact interested in her. I’m also still not sure why the information we have would be valuable. If I come across a Neo-Nazi speculating that she’s Jewish, shall I use this page to refute them? All this article tells me is a bit about what she’s tweeted; the only claims about her that I could really address on the basis of it would be claims about the highlighted tweets. If I wanted to refute her ideology, I’d do much better to look elsewhere on the site. Also, it’s worth pointing out that for the same amount of effort, I can find even less information about Gareth Young, no surprise given that his blog went down over a decade ago and there are other people with that name. I don’t take that to be an indication that we were mistaken in deleting his article. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 02:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

6. Lean towards preserving. Here's the thing: she wasn't just some dime a dozen YouTube pundit. I remember there was some huge drama that rocketed around the alt right/anti-SJW/anti-anti-SJW YouTube sphere before/after she left the Internet (I think Kraut & Tea was involved somehow?). The article needs to be developed to discuss that happening rather than being a wall of quotes, though. The wider historical significance here is the background e-contexts that contributed to events like the Unite the Right rally in 2017 (which actually occurred only the next month after she deleted her channel, not saying there's any direct link but to give you a chronological idea). The rise of that iteration of the alt-right was largely supported by that constellation of Internet communities, including YouTubers. Chillpilled (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
7. I think she should be preserved. While yes, she said horrible things, and the article is a bit bare bones, it helps us understand and give some context to the lead-up of events and stooges that we see today, like with Matt Walsh & Jordan Peterson. Her ironic fascism is still employed today and her talking points are still laundered. It's important to know the sources of talking points, and I think that she's a bit too notable to forget. -Space ^{— Unsigned, by: Spacegreninja / talk / contribs}

Goat

• Please learn how to format your AfDs properly. Carthage (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I am literally only following the instructions I was given. A somebody. (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I have cleaned it up. You did something wrong. Bongolian (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)