Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!

RationalWiki:Articles for demotion

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from RationalWiki:DEMOTE)
Jump to: navigation, search
There are 3 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. Add {{RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/"ArticleName"}} to the top of this page
  3. Give the cabal enough time to recover from our hangovers come to a general consensus
  4. 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
  5. Remove the template from the article itself. If the article has been approved for demotions, you may have the dishonors.

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.

Charles Darwin | Result: ?[edit]

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

Demote to silver[edit]

  1. Definitely missional, supportive, even if there could be a bit more work done on him. Corner (covfefe) 22:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

  1. Sorry, but 22 refs is barely enough for a bronze, let alone a silver. Andrew5 (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  2. Automatic rejection: there are bare links in the refs. Outside of that, the references are a bit barren. Good potential silver-level candidate, just needs more sources. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


Ben Shapiro | Result: ?[edit]

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

Demote to silver[edit]

1. Decent start, could be silver with some polishing. β€” The 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€” The 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€” The 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. Corn (covfefe) 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)

Cold War | Result: ?[edit]

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

Demote to silver[edit]

  1. Somewhat relevant, detailed but crisp, well referenced and illustrated. β€” The π—¦π—Ύπ—Ώπ˜-𝟭 talk stalk 04:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

  1. Overrelies on Wikipedia references. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


  • I think there's an excessive reliance on Wikipedia for sources. Bongolian (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Ctrl+Fing "See the Wikipedia article on" returns 71 hits, exactly a fourth of the total references. That isn't good. Plutocow (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
      • It appears to have been reduced to 62 out of 289, which is just more then a fifth actually. It's improving. Andrew5 (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Besides the problems with the references, I believe this article should also include information about the potential upcoming cold war between the U.S. and China. Plutocow (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Not a bad point, considering we just had Ted Cruz literally calling for a Cold War. Maybe he thinks the Chinese Dragon is cold-blooded? CorUsar (pester) 22:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The reliance on Wikipedia references might mean we can't find them. I suppose most sentences like this should just be removed. That should still leave >200 references, though. -Andrew5 (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd also like it better if we just ditched the "see wikipedia article" all together. It always came off as bloating the number of sources. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd say to cap it off at 15-20. Andrew5 (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)