RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Banana argument

Banana argument | Result: Status quo

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

Promote

1. Only 19 refs and large swaths of unsourced text. Arguable enough to even earn it a {{Needs sources}}, it needs more references to even sustain the bronze, and is nowhere near silver-level quality. -- Andrew5 (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Status quo

1. Improve, don't promote. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Agree. It gets annoying seeing people wanting to promote/demote pages without putting any effort into improving them first. Bongolian (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

   This article was promoted in haste, only because it was a top Google search. That's another reason I am vouching demotion, it was promoted without realizing the quality and never should've been promoted in the first place. Had it been nominated in 2021, it would have failed.Andrew5 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Let me add on to my rationale for demotion. The article was promoted in October 2011, in this discussion. It was due to the fact that it had high search traffic, and decent quality. This is the revision as of the upgrade, and sources weren't as mandatory back then. However, standards have since changed, and while this article has, it's not enough to keep it a silver. Hypothetically if I were to put {{cn}} next to every unsourced statement, it'd have dozens. Put another way - if this article was nominated now, it would fail in a landslide. We have to be consistent here. -Andrew5 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)