RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/TaraElla

TaraElla | Result: deleted

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

Delete

1. The article doesn't necessarily merit deletion. However, it's not missional to document every relatively mainstream view held by every political commentator. We should cut down to controversial views and pseudo-scientific views, if any; if none (or if none worth discussing), delete. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Pretty sure not missional. Doesn't pass the "so what?" test for me - David Gerard (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

   Why is this not missional?Wikibalance (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

3. Not being mainstream is a red herring. See her content and most of it is opinion based.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 15:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

   But the content of most subjects included in RW are opinion based. So what do you mean?Wikibalance (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

4. I am the subject of this article, and I object to being painted as some sort of closeted conservative crank.TaraElla (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. In the latest revision, I have more clearly refuted some of TaraElla's controversial beliefs. I think the new version would provide some balanced background information on TaraElla's statements vs how other people see the same topics, and would provide a useful balanced context for people reading TaraElla's articles or books. Feel free to add more.
   I think that this kind of balanced analysis of a writer's beliefs and statements is definitely missional for RW. If somebody reads her work and decide to Google her name for more information, it would be helpful if they found this article.Wikibalance (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
   p.s. I would classify her 'GLIF' as a crank idea, as well as her view on intersectional feminism as a whole. Documenting as many crank ideas as possible is missional for this site.^{— Unsigned, by: Wikibalance / talk / contribs}

   GLIF is NOT a crank idea.TaraElla (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

2. GLIF is a dangerous idea and will confuse people about what real intersectional feminism is. TaraElla is bascially a conservative dressed up as a liberal so we need to refute her. So keep.202.159.161.186 (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

   You really think so?TaraElla (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. I definitely agree we shouldn't cover every single crank out there, however, I'm aware not everyone agrees. I think we should focus on people who have gained a widespread attention, such as Alex Jones, who influence the alt-right as a whole. Individuals such as Bob Willington and people who I never will hear of again don't influence public opinion. Heck, Jontron is outspoken about his opinions, but hardly effects the alt-right aside from memes. Cranks are abundant and so long as someone out there is having babies, cranks aren't going to stop being produced. Instead of trying to cover all the cranks out there, I think we should focus on the articles we have and try improving those. We have so many stubs and I've brought this issue to light in the saloon bar. However, deleting this article merits that we delete many other articles which in and of itself requires community approval. In other words, I don't think this is the time or place to be making major decisions on what the website should focus on.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 01:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

   That's a useful insight -- feel free to add to Essay:Why notability is stupid and I hate it. I'm not saying we should delete all unnotable people -- just that this person doesn't have much MISSIONAL content. What's there to cover -- that she doesn't like Wikipedia's notability policy? So what? How can we even "debunk" her position on the notability policy? In short: No debunkable material = no article. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

   Well, the article in the current state is not missional, however, TaraElla does have a few refutable things:

   She makes wide generalities on liberals:[1]

if you do not support freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience to the max, you are NOT a liberal.

1. But then we get a lot this:[2]

intersectional feminism, or even feminism more generally, should be able to empower everyone, by breaking barriers to equal opportunity based on gender. It is becoming clearer and clearer that traditional feminism has failed to deliver in this regard, leaving perhaps the majority of women behind while serving as an intellectual hobby for a relatively few. Hence the rise of intersectional feminism. But my point is, even intersectional feminism, as it is practiced now, does not really deliver either. Why? It is still leaving the vast majority of women behind. Attempts to include ethnic minorities and queer women are to be congratulated, but this does not mean feminism has become truly inclusive. Not yet.

1. I think that X idealogy should be this and that. I've found a couple of obviously wrong statements, but I've found several that contain a lot of "muh opinions".—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 02:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

   I think there's no evidence of actual missionality here - David Gerard (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

2. I am not convinced by the article that she is asserting anything that's really missional. Simply being a feminist with her own idiosyncratic version of feminist cant is not enough; that's a vital part of the project for some, it seems. Nor is wanting to revise Wikipedia policies; they're surely subjects for legitimate debate, even if they're online molehills being made into mountains, that's just the internet for you. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)