RationalWiki talk:Articles for deletion
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I had to create a new page for my AfD. Either I fucked up or the instructions are incomplete[edit]
I had to do this, but the instructions don't say anything about creating a new page. Either they are incomplete or I fucked up something. GeeJayK (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- The instructions are complete, and you didn’t fuck up anything; this is standard for afds. The preload debate link prompts you to create a new page like you did without needing to spell everything out explicitly. Christopher (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Where can I find the template? I had to copy it from another AfD. GeeJayK (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- When you first stick the AfD template onto a page, it looks like this; the “preload debate” link creates the page semi-automatically (click it and then click show preview to see what I mean). Once the page is created, the instructions vanish. Christopher (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Where can I find the template? I had to copy it from another AfD. GeeJayK (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
political categories[edit]
so what have we decided about the political categories? they've been up for a vote for over a month now. G Man (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- @G Man We still need @Techpriest to run a bot to clear the categories before we can delete them.--Andrew5 (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
"Please notify the creator/main editor(s)"[edit]
Is this even really a requirement? I've never seen this happen on a regular basis in my time here Plutocow (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- It could be useful if they're both good faith and active. They'd be among the most likely to have a stake in improving the article to prevent deletion too. Chillpilled (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
new AFD[edit]
Hello editors , i have requested an AFD for page https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jonathan_Anomaly , there was a previous vote 2-3 years ago which was not legitimate by the looks of things . In order to ensure a fair AFD is the process to remove all previous votes and start again or continue from previous . please advise? Qwepoi (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Rename the old AFD appending the date to its title, then create a new one. Oh, and please
Unsure what this means, if you or anyone else has the ability to help with this request i would appreciate it , i have now signed Qwepoi (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC).
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) - What do you mean the old afd was "not legitimate"? Ioe bidome (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Per plutocow in the old afd: "The votes for delete seem suspicious as fuck, plus this is an article with a history of being put up for AfD by banned trolls" the afd was targeted by mikey and was protected. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was referring to a comment made by the OP. Ioe bidome (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Per plutocow in the old afd: "The votes for delete seem suspicious as fuck, plus this is an article with a history of being put up for AfD by banned trolls" the afd was targeted by mikey and was protected. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was unaware of the previous AFD until the old votes appeared , i then placed my reasoning for calling an AFD and will expand on that upon my vote once it commences. The trolling issue should now be resolved with permanent bans as alleged above therefore the vote should now be a fair representation of all editors of interest who would like to vote. You can of course have your vote in the AFD itself if you are of the opinion of keep i invite you to provide your reasoning and debate. Qwepoi (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- The AfD failed at least twice and no one involved has shown an interest in resuscitating it. The only reason why a new AfD should be brought up is if either someone has a new argument that hasn't been brought up before or if circumstances have changed that made the old keep arguments outdated; we don't revive things if no one has an actual interest in presenting a case. Plutocow (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- No one involved has shown an interest to resuscitate? That would surely be because the alleged trolls have been banned and those that previously voted "keep" would not obviously do so. The guy involved is a former academic , has 0 following what so ever and there are a handful of the same contributers and contributions each year to old news the last dated i can see was 4-5 years ago , there is no progression in this page and it is a waste of time keeping here just on the back of a previous failed AFD. As i mentioned you and others are welcome to have your say in the voting stage and i will have mine but it is my opinion as a contributor to Rational Wiki that this is not missional at all. Qwepoi (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- The "suspicious votes" referred to were by the side voting to delete the article, not the side voting to keep the article. Ioe bidome (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- A number of years ago it was Oliver D Smith writing articles of this nature , having checked the history of this page the alias " tobias " created and built the page originally , and this account has been linked and permanently banned since as well as a number of other accounts. If we are not enforcing bans against vandals and allowing their work to remain we lose all credibility and we might as well give ODS his accounts back and let him have a field day. Having also taken the time to look at the previous AFD we cannot suggest that was a fair AFD as it lasted less than a day and was initiated by trolls who were also banned. This suggested vote by @Qwepoi seems reasonable to me it would be more open and fair vote so we can assess if any other editors in the community agree or not. I would certainly do a little more research before i placed my vote but looking at it once over i do not believe this page is one we should be looking to keep because of issues years ago with troll and banned users.David D (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- >>>"If we are not enforcing bans against vandals and allowing their work to remain..."
- "Tobias" hasn't made an edit to this page since 2019. I think you don't understand what a wiki is. The article is missional, adequately sourced, and has failed two previous deletion attempts. Hashing all this past drama crap up is a waste of time for everyone. Just my opinion. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Anomaly is missional due to his promotion of the crank views of eugenics. He attended the Natal Conference in December 2023 so this is not even old news. Christ, in March this year he even wrote this fun article for the American Enterprise Institute (and almost excessively pro-GMO) affiliated group Genetic Literacy Project arguing in favor of human genetic engineering, due to something about modern medicine failing to keep in check "harmful mutations". He has learned nothing from history on this topic at all, apparently. BobJohnson (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- A number of years ago it was Oliver D Smith writing articles of this nature , having checked the history of this page the alias " tobias " created and built the page originally , and this account has been linked and permanently banned since as well as a number of other accounts. If we are not enforcing bans against vandals and allowing their work to remain we lose all credibility and we might as well give ODS his accounts back and let him have a field day. Having also taken the time to look at the previous AFD we cannot suggest that was a fair AFD as it lasted less than a day and was initiated by trolls who were also banned. This suggested vote by @Qwepoi seems reasonable to me it would be more open and fair vote so we can assess if any other editors in the community agree or not. I would certainly do a little more research before i placed my vote but looking at it once over i do not believe this page is one we should be looking to keep because of issues years ago with troll and banned users.David D (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was unaware of the previous AFD until the old votes appeared , i then placed my reasoning for calling an AFD and will expand on that upon my vote once it commences. The trolling issue should now be resolved with permanent bans as alleged above therefore the vote should now be a fair representation of all editors of interest who would like to vote. You can of course have your vote in the AFD itself if you are of the opinion of keep i invite you to provide your reasoning and debate. Qwepoi (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Page's busted.[edit]
There are currently two Articles for Deletion, but it only says there's one, and it shows nothing on the page depite both of them being in the logs. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan, Try clearing the cache on the page where it says there's only one. To do this go to the page and add "?action=purge" to the end of the URL, then type return, and confirm purging the cache. Bongolian (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleting 'Fun' pages[edit]
Can we agree that pages in 'Fun' should only be deleted if they are offensive, illegal or defamatory to living people? "it's not funny." isn't a good reason IMHO. Scream!! (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)