RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Ted Rall

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ted Rall | Result: keep-ish[edit]

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


  1. Well, like I was saying...
    I would say Rall is worthy of a page cos
    3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. 4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
    I agree the page is a really big stub at this point. I was thinking to write more after I get a few of his books in - in particular he's a good critic of how the media is controlled. But some of that stuff is still on its way by interlibrary.
    If this page goes, do we really want to keep a page for the knob who does Mallard Fillmore? — Unsigned, by: MatsFan / talk / contribs 23:58, 28 July 2014‎ (UTC)
    oopsMatsFan (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    "otherstuffexists" is not a good reason, particularly as this page is shit and apparently a bullshit hatchet job magnet - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't giving "otherstuffexists" as a reason to keep this page; that was an aside. If a Pulitzer finalist is unworthy, then some unfunny jag is also unworthy.

I don't agree that "someone might vandalize" is a reason to delete.

I think the page should be kept and improved. You all know better than me what the standards are around here. Of course, if you delete it now, you will be deprived of my deathless prose later.MatsFan (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. Significant revisions, with sources and exploration of the subject's works that isn't "he can't draw".--Madman (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC) The Madman
    Except you put back all the stuff the citations didn't check out for, and you failed to link to the examples you're referring to (that failed to show the claims you're making) - David Gerard (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly when this page first went up, I was surprised that it hadn't existed yet. I have added a little. I was picturing adding summaries of two more of his books, but I'm not going to bother til the shroud comes off. Meanwhile, revert, subvert, or pervert the page as needed.MatsFan (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


  1. Was an attempt at a hatchet job, with references that didn't actually support the claims. Once those were removed, there's no reason left for this to exist. David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Per reasons stated by Gerard above me. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. This article isn't on mission and serves no purpose, drown it in water. --NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 10:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


  • In Silk Road to Ruin, he reports on the sport of buzkashi, which is like polo except with whips in place of mallets and a goat carcass in place of a ball. Oh & instead of teams: battle royal. Winner gets a new used car. — Unsigned, by: MatsFan / talk / contribs 23:57, 28 July 2014‎ (UTC)
  • It's hard to view Ted Rall as anything other than a tremendous hack. But that doesn't really have anything to do with whether there should be an article. Ikanreed (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)