RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Ben Shapiro

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ben Shapiro | Result: Demoted to bronze, with no objection against promoting to no brainstar[edit]

Ben Shapiro (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Demote to silver[edit]

1. Decent start, could be silver with some polishing. β€” π—¦π—Ύπ—Ώπ˜-𝟭 talk stalk 05:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The article does seem to be significantly problematic, especially with the Youtube and Twitter links. Aside from that the content is decent enough. β€” π—¦π—Ύπ—Ώπ˜-𝟭 talk stalk 06:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Demote to Bronze[edit]

  1. This is a viable bronze article. It is not a viable silver article yet. References are too unpolished. The problematic stuff @Plutocow mentions is a joke. It's complaints about the article being messily organized (messy is Brexit, Shapiro isn't) instead of being organically grown and, links not being archived and his BBC interview. None of that I would qualify as an article needing attention. Unarchived links are not an attention part. The article isn't that disorganized and putting something you think belongs on the page as a reason for needing attention is... not something I agree with. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  2. I cleaned up the article a bit, removed 2 strikeout humour references, the "nickname" they put there, and deleted a redlink, so I'll say it's narrowly a bronze and can be demoted. Generally it doesn't require a vote, but in this case it does as there is a demotion vote, so please don't change the rating until the vote concludes. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  3. Would be viable for silver, but almost the entire thing should undergo some reordering, so bronze seems like a good spot to me armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 23:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


  1. It's worth noting that the talkpage lists it as a significantly problematic article, which is an automatic disqualifier for bronze let alone silver. Though if you think it shouldn't be considered significantly problematic, you can make your case. Plutocow (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    See my vote. It's mostly bs reasons that don't really count for significantly problematic. We have a list of rules for when an article becomes significantly problematic and most of the complaints are rules we apply to Silver-or-higher articles and in one case a non-sequitur. I've neutralized the brainstar. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    I cleaned up the article a bit. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oh. I made the vote intending for the article to be given bronze, not silver, but in the section I wrote silver. Whoops. β€” π—¦π—Ύπ—Ώπ˜-𝟭 talk stalk 09:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
    Bronze doesn't need a vote. If anyone believes it's worthy of bronze, it is, so long as they could reasonably make a case why it's vaguely missional and not a giant mess. Cortisol (argue) 21:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
    However, in controversial cases, a vote is a good idea. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  3. It appears their is a 3-2 split for bronze. Generally bronze doesn't require a vote but as its somewhat split, I am leaning towards it failing. Andrew5 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  4. It's honestly gone stale, with no votes in a while. It appears to be no consensus even for bronze. While this generally doesn't require a vote, it appears two people think even a bronze is too little. Perhaps close with no brainstar? Andrew5 (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

What a ghastly mess (status quo)[edit]

  1. It's got a ton of references, though many are fragile twitter and youtube links. That's probably the article's saving grace, such as it is. There are several things that really stand out about this piece. It's very poorly organized β€” just look at the table of contents. Yikes! And the first six paragraphs... ugh, what a freaking mess of strikeout "humor", "citation not needed", "do you really believe that"... it looks like someone took a bunch of memes and put them in a blender and copy-pasted them into this ghastly mess. This article needs a complete rewrite, not a demotion. β€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  2. Not yet good enough for bronze. Christopher (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)