RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Takedownman

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Takedownman | Result: Keep[edit]

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


  1. What this page amounts to is "Somebody is wrong on the internet". And this particular person is wrong about the topic of human trafficking and the dark web, which are not really within our area of speciality. He doesn't seem to be very notable, a Google search doesn't turn up any quality third party material about him. The two references on the page aren't even about him. Spud (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    RW was founded around "somebody is wrong on the Internet" and is dedicated to a significant degree to woo- and bullshit-peddlers on the net.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Delete for reasons expressed above by Spud. I should have raised this yesterday rather than placing a note on the article page. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Authors saving throw failed - We aren't the place to go when Wikipedia doesn't want to cover your topic.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


  1. Right, so I'm researching about urban legends on the Dark Web. I write things like this and this to these ends. One of the key sources of misinformation about this topic comes from misleading infographics like this, the other source is the emerging set of Youtubers who mix fact and fiction into their reporting about deep web sites, spreading urban legends, confusion and misinformation. I find this new phenomenon very damaging to the understanding of the actual Dark Web, often creating moral panics from nothing. I edit Wikipedia heavily to seperate fact from fiction in these areas but Takedownman is not yet Wikipedia-notable so unsuitable for inclusion. I was seeking to build up a portfolio of Takedownman's misinformation and I assumed Rational Wiki would be a suitable place to do so. Obviously the article is not yet in any kind of finished state yet. I hope understanding my goals will help. 13:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: Deku-shrub / talk / contribs
  2. Give it a few more days. If shrubby over here can make it decent, then it can keep. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. We do have to do this eventually. KOMF 18:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Keep for now, pending improvements. Dark Web is something we should cover better. BicyclewheelModerator 09:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. This article has potential. Keep it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Definite change of mind after recent work by Deku-shrub. The potential is there. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. The list at the end could do with a trim, but otherwise I guess it works out.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  8. I certainly think this article can and should stay, though I do mean that with a significant rewrite, where his wall of text of video links is replaced with actual text, analysis and refutation as per the mission statement. So the current article is crap, but there's a ton of sources that can be used for a rewrite already in it. So deletion is not needed. Also, this guy is atleast as notable as Stars are Souls. I find this guy notable. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


  • Give the author a while to answer "so what?" but it does need to be answered really - David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)