RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Traditional values

Traditional values | Result: Merged with and redirected to Appeal to tradition

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

Delete

1. Just a collection of bullet points and unfunny snark with very little context and no references. Derivative of Good old days and Family values. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Our page on Tradition is summoning most of this page aswell. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Supremely unfunny and I have no idea why a defunct New Zealand environmentalist party is in the article. A somebody. (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
4. Not remotely funny , lacks reference also , bin. Teriyaki12 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
5. Delete this article , lacks any relevance.DecemberRebmeced (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep

1. There probably is a line to be drawn between "traditional values" and "family values", though I'm not sure if conservatives who abuse the terms would bother. In any case, yeah, this page could use some more improvements. Luigifan18 (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
2. I like it. I want to keep it. It’s rationale. New world (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with Appeal to tradition, put in redirect. The latter could do with some work too. But as usual with me, the original page must remain until this is done right. So consider this in a straight Delete/Keep fight as a vote for Keep [for now]. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
2. I second the motion to merge and redirect. It does seem to me like there are certain parts of this article could be salvaged, if properly cleaned up with some spit and polish. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 20:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Merge with tradition Ioe bidome (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
4. Merge and redirect to Appeal to Tradition. FriendlySocDem (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
5. Merge with tradition sounds good to me RTD (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
6. I agree with KarmaPolice.-Flandres (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Goat

1. I've removed the snark that was added today, unfortunately quality edits added alongside the snark were removed. Ioe bidome (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Votes are 5-2-5, with 7 in favor of keeping the content in some form, so it's not a consensus in favor of deletion. Plutocow (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
3. 'Change must have a majority vote' - those five merge/redirects are a de facto vote for 'keep for now', so I would say the motion fails. And as it's been open over a month, time to pull the plug? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

   Perhaps, though you could also argue that the merge option succeeds as the middle ground, as there are 7 votes for the content existing in some form but 10 against it staying in its current form. Plutocow (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

   We're kinda stuck until somebody makes a decent attempt to merge it into 'appeal to tradition'. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)