RationalWiki:Articles for demotion

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from RationalWiki:DEMOTE)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
There are 2 pages marked for demotion:

Some articles here are good. Like, really good. So good, you want others to know how good they are. Others were once really good, and now... not so much. If you believe an article is worthy or no longer worthy of a Silver or perhaps even Gold brainstar, you can place it on this page, where it will be promptly ignored carefully considered by the Mob.

The only rule we seem to agree upon is "Thou Shalt Use Common Sense", but in general...

  1. Add the {{Article for demotion}} (or just {{afdem}}) template to the top of the article you wish to demote
  2. Click on the relevant redlink at the top of the article's page, add {{subst:Template:Article for demotion discussion starter}} at top.
  3. Add {{RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/"ArticleName"}} to the top of this page
  4. Give the cabal (there isn’t one) enough time to recover from our hangovers come to a consensus.
  5. After the voting is more or less settled, move {{RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/"ArticleName"}} to a proper place in the vault, and add the result to the title.
  6. Remove the template from the article itself. If the article has been approved for demotions, you may have the dishonors.

In addition, keep in mind that for a Gold Brainstar, you will need to have a Cover Story page prepared. This is because pages with a Gold Brainstar are added to the featured article selection on the Main Page. Meanwhile, adding or removing a bronze brainstar can be done unilaterally and you don't need to nominate an article to do so.

And don't forget to subscribe. This will allow you to see when a new article for demotion is added.

To judge whether an article is suitable for demotion, see: Article rating.

Fascism | Result: ?[edit]

Fascism (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)


  1. So this Topic is Pretty important it describes fascism very well. I have removed all bare HTTP links I could find Reichtangle (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. I think the article is well-referenced with high quality writing, as well as a topic that's obviously very relevant to RW's mission. I fully support this article's promotion to silver. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 04:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

  1. Contains sections without citations. Carthage (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    I've inserted some markers for places where the page would benefit from citations ({{More sources}} and {{cn}}). Bongolian (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    Added sources to sections that were lacking ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


George Orwell | Result: ?[edit]

George Orwell (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View discussion)


  1. Requested by KarmaPolicecosmikdebris talk stalk 23:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. My reasoning; the Bronze was awarded for an article which effectively no longer exists [I'd guess I reused about 10% of the main text and perhaps at best 50% of the ref links]. It is only fair that it gets re-rated. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  3. ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  4. Bongolian (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

  1. The article is in very good shape but needs some cleanup. Most references are bare naked URLs and must be properly formatted. Inline wikipedia references should be enclosed using the wpa tag. And it could use some more images. Then, I think it might be ready for silver. I have no objection to maintaining the bronze assignment. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, me sucks at little things like that. I tried to do 'right' WP links in the 'See Also' bit but kinda crapped it up and then ran out of time. I couldn't really find any images for this page which would actually add anything to the article, though was personally tempted to put in Orwell's pic c1925 in which he's sporting a 'Hitler' 'tashe. I personally feel it's a solid Bronze right now. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  3. There were a few typos I noticed. Carthage (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm currently halfway between migrating PCs, this is the old one and my spellchecker plugin recently stopped working. Though you got a 'false positive' with 'libellous'; it's correct in British English [which is used for the whole article]. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    There's been considerable cleanup of the page since the nomination, including of references. It's worth a reevaluation on this basis.Bongolian (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Yep; the goat's complaints have been satisfied, mainly down to the work of Rairyu75. Barring better refs [ie archive.is screengrabs of stuff behind paywalls] and/or some major new Orwell biog I think this page is now 'as good as it is gonna get'. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


  1. The content of the article is indeed good enough for silver, but some references are still bare links. That's my only complaint. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  2. The article is definitely silver-quality, but the matter of reference cleanup is one that's considerably too important to be ignored. I'd be more than happy to throw my vote in for this page's demotion when that matter is resolved, though! Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 08:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)