RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Steve Turley

Steve Turley | Result: Keep

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

Delete

1. This person is not very notable. While 43,500 followers on Twitter is certainly better then the 5 I have, it still isn't that much in this day and age. Plus, his Wikipedia article was deleted for being not notable (check the talk page for the link). Seems to be another nobody with an article. Andrew5 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
2. We don't need an article on every random dumbass with a Twitter account. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 02:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Article is harmless, missional, there's no need to delete this or quibble over its existence. Wikipedia may have notability stuff but it's not necessarily relevant to this wiki. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
2. We care about missionality, not notability. Plutocow (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   What all of a sudden makes 43.5k followers notable? Three Arrows was deleted while having 7 times the number of followers. Andrew5 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   Did you even read my comment? Plutocow (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   Wait a minute, you didn't participate in the 3 Arrows debate. Andrew5 (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Andrew5 has been nominated for the Did you even read my comment? award for December 2022. Congratulations!

—cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

1. There's also the fact that I still think deleting that article was a mistake. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

   I figured that would come up. Andrew5 (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

2. Appears to also have an active YouTube channel with 1 million subscribers, reliably getting over 100k views. Article could use some work to make clearer that he isn’t totally indistinguishable from every other Christian nationalist, but we have articles on less prominent people. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 13:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
4. At least five of his books were translated to ptbr. If he's notable down here, he's notable elsewhere. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Vee (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Notability or lack thereof is not by itself a valid criterion for proposing an article on RW for vaporization. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 01:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  The article also sucks, though. It's clearly another entry in the "I got mad at someone on the internet and typed this through tears" series. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 02:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah maybe but like, again, the article. It's small, brief summary of a shitty podcaster. It isn't poorly written, the article isn't a hopelessly tiny zero effort stub (which would've been the case if the guy was like really a random schmuck on Twitter). It's on topic. But why delete it? Why not just leave it as it is, a small inconsequential page that is relevant to the mission of this wiki. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's not giving out enough information to satisfy readers. It's like getting 1/32 of a pizza pie as a slice. Andrew5 (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  You make it sound as if adding more details were an impossible feat, or at least one restricted to other people. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 13:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  We should stay away from Twitter references, especially given the website could collapse. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  "It's not giving out enough information to satisfy readers". That's why we have expansion templates. Otherwise, guess we have to toss out all articles that transcludes {{Expand}} like Media racism. As I reiterate my point (le sigh): there are reasons we delete short pages but usually it's when they're zero effort stubs or not missional or the subject is excessively obscure, and this one isn't it. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  This literally looks like a zero effort article. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Not zero effort, as the original creator did have to at least consume enough of their ramblings to make the summing-up that they did. I did a revision check and it is basically the same article which was created back in '20. I would argue that the semi-stub does need a bit more fleshing-out; that it is part of the RW's mission to provide at least a bare-bones walkthough on the kinds of BS X person likes to peddle. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)