RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Rebuttals of Gamergate

Rebuttals of Gamergate | Result: keepity keep

Rebuttals of Gamergate (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. How many articles on Gamergate does one wiki need? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Ugh this was a shit idea. Why did you go through with it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

   Ryulong, first you complain that you aren't allowed to use enough space to rebut GG. Then I give space to rebut GG. And what do you do? Complain. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 20:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

   Eh, at least he's agreeing with AgingHippie on something for once. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

   No, my complaints were that everything was being cut out without actual acknowledgement of context. This is just a mess that I have no intention to work on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

   So you've no interest in writing a page that responds to GG's talking points, rather than endlessly arguing on the talkpage? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

   You haven't really produced one of those. You just skimmed the main page weeks ago and took out what you thought were major talking points.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

   Like Tyler Wilde and Anne Lewis? If you feel other talking points should be included, add them. We need a rebuttal to GG. Right now, your our Gamergate page reads like a really really long history, with few responses. I'd love to have a page debunking every single GG talking point; right now, we don't have one, and as far as I know, nobody does. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

   GG has talking points worth a damn? News to me. --Castaigne (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

   Nobody said they were good, right, or sensible; to some extent, that lack of validity is why we cover them. PacWalker 02:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

   • I'd vote keep if and only if the main GG article is thinned out as a result of this article's existence. But alas, we all know Ryu's forces will not let it happen. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{This taste... it's of a liar!} 20:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Nevermind. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{By the way, 2 divided into 666 is 333} 20:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

     Why not? Now he has somewhere to move the article's content. Before, he had to watch as stuff he wrote was slowly burned away. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

3. Not a fan of the "rebutting X" format. On rationalwiki, if X needs to be rebutted, that's for the X article to do. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

   When Ryulong did that on the main Gamergate article, it was cut down 50%. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

   Which was good. You don't refute every damned thing a group of people happen to say. That's a matter of general good writing. To become too focused on details and lose the directness and straightforwardness of summary discussion is bad. Just in general. Unless you're writing a non-fiction book, of course. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

   I agree the cutting was good. But we should see Gamergaters like YECs. They both have debunked yet widely spread arguments and impact on culture. Both merit debunking. We can have the GG article for a history and brief discussion and the rebuttal article for an indepth debunking, like RW's many indepth debunkings of YEC screeds. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep

1. Enough to actually rebut GG's claims. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 20:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
2. We already got loads of rebuttal pages on various topics, I don't see the harm in having one on Gamergate claims too. And it opens up opportunities to shorten the main Gamergate article, which some people insist is way too long. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
3. We have rebuttals for other articles, so as long as this helps to keep the main article from being such a bloatfest, I'm game. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
4. Actually, FCP's argument for keeping it is pretty sound. Keep. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Because I'm a terrorist!} 21:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
5. Read it. Looks good. Seems missional. Keepity keep. --Castaigne (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
6. Looks good, relevant (and I'd argue important) to mission, I vote keep. Bazer63 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
7. Nice to have a one-stop shop for when I have to talk to these people, as opposed to having to dig through the main article, or worse, the entire internet <3 C^{Sapphire bullets of pure love} 04:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat

• If it helps with honing down the main Gamergate article to a readable length & coherent narrative, have at it. But it doesn't seem ideal for mainspace. I suggest collaborative essay. & The title is awful. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  Why essay? We have tons of "rebuttal" pages, like "Question Evolution! - CMI's Rebuttals to General Objections to the 15 Questions". If the title's bad, what's a better one? Rebuttals to Gamergate? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  I suggest "common Gamergate arguments". |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Yo, gatorade me bitch!} 22:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  I suggest "The bullshit claims that Gamergate perpetuates". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• It might have been useful to have an article on Gamergate. But the sheer volume of information given the topic is just ridiculous. I mean seriously, Wikipedia's World War II page is about 226Kb, and the GG article is currently half that. In the grand scheme of things, GG amounts to a fart in the wind. CorruptUser (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  And the Wikipedia article on The Biggest Loser Pinoy Edition (season 1) is about 631 Kb. It's almost like the historical importance of an article's topic and its size don't have to meaningfully correlate. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  First, GamerGate will have an long-lasting effect on internet and geek culture. In hindsight, Racefail in 2008-2009 was only the opening salvo in this culture war. Secondly, to reiterate the BoN, importance and size do not correlate. I disagree entirely; there is not too much information on GamerGate. --Castaigne (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  That said, I think (that in the main article) history presently obscures issues and errors in claims somewhat, though I won't rule out an isochoric solution. PacWalker 02:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oh my goat, this is only halfway the same argument as the last seventeen! PacWalker 06:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• I lean towards delete, but as Weaseloid said, if it helps keep down the length of the GG article, then it might be worth it. As it is, I think we have about 1000 times more words than are necessary about GG on RW already, so I guess the danger is that this just turns into another GG page, with more detail, not less as the end result. Worm (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Better title: "An index of Gamergate claims". Or, if you wish to sacrifice the reference in favor of utility, "List of Gamergate claims".--ZooGuard (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• The page has some useful background info that was scraped away from the big main article. Over time this page may be more useful as a "List of..." style page as ZG says above. Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  Seems like this is becoming a wiki of lists. What are we, BuzzFeed now? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  71 articles for deletion you can't miss! PacWalker 20:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  53 Psuedoscientists who are full of shit! --Madman (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Madman

  42 Pieces of Woo and Bullshit You Won't Believe Secretly Control Your Mind! |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Antonio stella bottom tile} 02:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  Can we make a list page that lists the list pages on RationalWiki? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  We already have Category:Lists. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{We exist in different epistemological paradigms, fuckpants!} 02:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  pffft, the category is boring. the list list would be fun and listy 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  Inevitable result: Fun:List of lists of lists PacWalker 16:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'll gladly rename the article once AFD is over. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• 7 against, 3 for. Done? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  Are you crazy? It's way too soon! ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)