RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Scholarpedia

Scholarpedia | Result: Redirected

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

Keep

1. Relevant to how not to do it. Miekal could just as easily have added that to the actual article - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Fuck that noise. He deletes, not adds. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

   DG is correct here. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Removing my vote. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 07:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

3. Seems okay ... And the claim that it's dominated by Spam & nearly dead doesn't seem true judging from the Recent Changes page ... Not that it woud matter, as such. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete

1. As much as this would be on mission, it's a nearly dead wiki dominated by spam account creation; and it will never be more than a stub here Miekal 17:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Doesn't look likely to progress beyond stub status. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Can't see anything relevant to our interests here. Sophie^Wilder 09:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Mikal's analysis is hard hitting. I'm convinced. Delete whatever he says. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

   It just occurred to me that Mikal's analysis is much more compelling than I initially gave it credit for. In gact, it's pure genius. The stub template should redirect to the afd template and any articles on dead anythings should be deleted. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

5. Unless this stub (2 lines, for crying out loud!) is expanded to demonstrate why Scholarpedia is a particularly good example of "how not to do it", I don't see why a redirect to Scholarpedia's entry on our Wikisphere list wouldn't suffice. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)