RationalWiki talk:Articles for deletion

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: < 2015>, <1>

Deleted Wikipedia articles submitted by insane people[edit]

It's what it says on the tin. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I give you The Ansestorial Gods. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I added a substantial chunk of those to the list; my personal favorite (my handiwork) was Kids Raping and Singing, but it's the associated comment that really puts it over the top. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Criteria[edit]

Because there doesn't seem to be any standard for how we delete these articles, I think we should have a little test. I hereby introduce the Three Criteria for Mainspace Deletion:

  1. The article or topic is off-mission.
  2. The article is a stub with little to no chance of expansion.
  3. The article does not contain any sources, nor can anyone find sources for the claims within.

This way we have a codified rule for deletion, and the Burden of proof is on the people who wish to delete the article in question, not those who wish to keep it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, an article would have to meet two of these criteria to be deleted. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This standard is clearly satanic. Christopher (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Good post! RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
How about if the consensus is for it to go, it goes. We're not yet big enough to need rules governing this. Christopher (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I'll put it up.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 21:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Two out of three people supporting something like this is not consensus. Christopher (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Idk if it's worth taking it down. Do you have any doubts?-DiamondDisc1(talk) 21:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not exactly hard to take it down and it's only been up a few minutes, as my post on 21:11 made clear, I think it's an absurd idea. Christopher (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll rollback the edit for now.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 21:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
For a fairly big change (and it would be, if it wasn't ignored) such as this, a post in the saloon is probably needed. Christopher (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For posterity, the result was a resounding "no". —Kazitor, pending 11:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking back[edit]

AFD system has been here for abit over four years now. Would we ever want to go back? Zero (talk - contributions) 22:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

New Topic[edit]

Recently, we have had to deal with individuals claiming to be the subjects of articles or unattached talkpages, either claiming to repent or wishing to end a feud with RW as a whole. Under what circumstances should these requests be considered? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Forgive me for answering a question with a question, but are you asking if we should accept their claims at face value and delete their articles? Or are you asking under what conditions we should believe their claims? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The deletion request should be handled the same way any other one is; it should be reviewed based on the reasons given and debated in the AfD pages. If the rationale is ridiculous, it'll invariably be rejected whether or not the requester claims to be the subject of the article or not. One of the only times I can see where one of these types of requests is rejected outright without discussion is where the article has previously been the subject of an AfD, as was the case with the recent Viharo case. In most cases there's no need to open up a discussion that's already been debated and closed. Also, if the AfD includes any kind of threat (legal, harassment, etc.) towards RW or any of its editors, the request should be vaporized on sight. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie: The latter question is what I mean. @Cosmikdebris: So should I restore the Ben Steigmann talkpage? IIRC, we didn't go through the proper channels for its deletion. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@RoninMacbeth If the individuals in question can prove that they are indeed who they claim to be (posts on their sites/blogs/social media accounts, confirmation via a verified email account, etc), and that they have indeed turned their act around (news articles, apologies via their site/blogs/social media accounts, etc), then their articles should be amended to reflect their change in status. We should not, however, delete the articles in their entirety, as that would fall under whitewashing the reputations in question. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@RoninMacbeth Well, the Steigmann case was not a repeat AfD like the Rome Vhiaro one was, and there was some debate. It was removed rather quickly, though, and there were anons involved in the discussion, so your point is valid. I didn't see a solid justification for removal of the Steigmann article because I saw the request as either the subject or his sock puppets whining about non-notability and poor sourcing, neither of which is a valid reason for removal. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

What to do with second-take afd?[edit]

I'm attempting an AfD for Category:Bullshit but it seems like there is one that exists already. Do I move the old one to make way for the new one or...? I'm sorry, there's no instructions on those kinds of AfD and I'm not really willing to parse through archives to see what they've done to those entries. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I would suggest a modifier in the title of a new AfD article to clarify that it is a new AfD vote, perhaps the current year or alternatively something along the lines of "second version" or some such. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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)
Ah, ok. Thanks. GeeJayK (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)