RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Very Serious People

Very Serious People | Result: Deleted

Very Serious People (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Discuss

I'd have preferred just removing all the examples, since this is hardly the worst rambling political article on the site, but deleting is more expedient-"Shut up, Brx." 06:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

🤨 What's with the improper formatting? You need to follow the instructions in RationalWiki:Articles for deletion. Add the template to RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Log too, which you haven't done either. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is what the Goat section is for. Don't add a separate Discuss heading again. Spud (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI this is because Brxbrx did the process all wrong by simply creating a page and then just adding the sections. I didn't want to do all the formatting for Brxbrx initially, expecting that Brxbrx will follow proper procedure, hence I've kept this section in place. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I know. I trust you to always do what's right. Spud (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. -Remove examples. My only objection was that there was barely any deliberation. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2. - Seems missionary--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

   Very serious people only engage in missionary. Bongolian (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

3. Yes, keep.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 15:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete

1. Don't think it is valuable as we have an article for all the mentioned people anyway so just doubles up the information. Ace^Moderator 06:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2. -"Shut up, Brx." 06:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
3. I'd prefer to delete, but I'd accept removing examples. I don't find the concept particularly clear. Bongolian (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
4. As there seems to be little or no evidence that the term is used in this manner outside of RW I vote delete. Nobody is going to come here looking for a definition of a usage which does not exist.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
5. What Bob said. Spud (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
6. The concept is quite idiosyncratic and the nebulous definition has attracted all kinds of subjective additions. This article is along the lines of the "wingnuttery" and "moonbattery" categories in the amount of completely subjective editing they attract. Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
7. Not a very good article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
8. A lot of what's outlined here has spotty applicability. The terms aren't specific aside from a general critique of centrism and balance, which are already covered in other articles, and with that, you can easily use this to sweep anyone with the "Very Serious People" claim. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
9. At core, a rather silly idea, not really subject to 'debunking'. Any commentator on public matters in the USA that seeks to maintain an air of gravitas (and given the current state of things, that's a bad thing?) and tries to build consensus (and given the current state of things, that's a bad thing?) might be labelled with it. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 16:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön It's been deleted already. Spud (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

They only care about maintaining their own privilege and power. The actual consensus seems to be in favor of radical, systemic change. These shills do the exact opposite of building consensus and fighting for the people. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, in that case, the obvious thing to do is to restore it, so you can delete it again. That's the ticket. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 00:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Goat

1. I guess that this is an American term so I am not so familiar with it. Was it commonly used? Is it still commonly used in the way we suggest? Can all these descriptions of political positions and opinions really be applied to all the people on the list? If the answer to everything is "Yes" then I guess I'd be for keep.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

   I don't think it's something that the average person has heard of or uses. I think it's more like the pundit class using it against each other, and even then not much anymore. Only a few of the examples given have references that actually use the term. Bongolian (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

   Is this even a widespread term? Hadn't heard it before encountering it here. Honestly the article as it is just seems like an excuse to label whichever politicians/outlets editors don't like. An article on tone policing probably makes more sense-"Shut up, Brx." 08:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

   There are legitimate reasons to dislike the people and publications listed in the article, calling them "corporate shills" would probably get a few disapproving nods from the corporate shills here tho. — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

   Yeah, but those reasons are elaborated in the article pages or through a small note? The previous list didn't do any of it, just listed The Atlantic for instance, without any more justification. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

2. On the one hand, this page is kind of shit. On the other hand, there is a type of pundit that talks out of their ass a lot. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I gone and done it. Ace^Moderator 03:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)