2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/TruthWiki

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TruthWiki | Result: move to to do list[edit]

Delete[edit]

  1. It's a short, crappy stub that's utterly uninformative and useless. JorisEnter (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. It's missional but not widely viewed whatsoever. It's worth RW's time to focus on other sites. FuzzyCatPotato of the Pale Loves (talk/stalk) 15:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. We don't need articles on every single crank website in existence. We don't need articles on obscure ones like this. When I did a Google search for "truthwiki", the site didn't even turn up until the second page. Spud (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. It ought to be expanded, if it's missional. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Looks missional to me. If you don't like that it's a stub, write the rest. Flannan Isle (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Seems missional, also worth criticizing the fact that it isn't even a wiki, and you can't even make an account. KOMF 20:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]

  • It's missional, but it's also unusably short. Frankly as it stands it's a to do list entry - David Gerard (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. MarmotHead (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No lack of missionality - the question is, will our entry on it be reasonably and qualitatively expanded or not? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Missional, but unless someone is willing to put the time and effort into expanding it into a proper, ref.ed article, kill it off. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)