RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2017

This is a list of old deletion discussions. Newest at the top.

2024 archives 2023 archives 2022 archives 2021 archives 2020 archives 2019 archives 2018 archives 2017 archives 2016 archives 2015 archives 2014 archives

December 2017

The Blind Watchmaker | Result: Delete

The Blind Watchmaker (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. A pitiful stub for two years, put it out of its misery. Christopher (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Zero-effort stub. Stubs should be kept only when there is sufficient interesting information. This article provides virtually nothing, so it might as well be a red link for someone else to hopefully fill with better content in the future. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Only two sentences long that hasn't been edited much since its creation since two years ago (the only edits are maintenance edits). If you're planning to expend much effort into articles at a later date but only want to lay the groundwork for it, confine this to your userspace rather than make it official namespace. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 21:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Michael Peroutka | Result: Delete

Michael Peroutka (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. He seems to be a dick based on a few Google searches but he's a living person and this is completely unsourced. Christopher (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Unless we can find sources to back up this article we should delete it. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
3. -💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Simony | Result: Deleted

Simony (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Useless stub. a ƽøȼɪаլ ^{յμʃтɪȼε шаѓѓɪøӷ} @ 22:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
2. An arcane factoid that's not especially relevant to RW. I took a quick look at the sin article but couldn't see an obvious place for it there either. Boredatwork (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
3. -⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
4. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Yes. Bongolian (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Stubby trivia page. Spud (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Seems like it could fit with Indulgences Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, unlike indulgences, this practice predates the Protestant Reformation (16th century) by a few hundred years (simony is most widespread during the 9th and 10th centuries). They're both similar forms of Catholic corruption, but to tie them with indulgences can be misleading. I don't blame you though since the article massively sucks and you'll have to search engine it to get far more informative results (which defeats the point of the article). Funnily enough, this may be missional or at least not entirely pointless as there is one interesting statement I've seen in an earlier revision: Practitioners of the [[Name it and claim it]] "gospel" practice this all of the [[time]] when they go on [[Television|TV]] and solicit "[[tithe|tithes]]" to their [[church]]. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

2. I think Name it and claim it can have an mention of simony and at least provide background or a historical parallel. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
3. What LeftyGreenMario said.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 22:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• We should have an article on this, but this is not quite better than nothing. Throw back to the to-do list? - David Gerard (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Doctors Health Press | Result: Keep

Doctors Health Press (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Stub about not particularly notable site that is probably not all that different from the many other alt med sites out there. Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 16:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

   "Not being unique" hasn't stopped us from covering countless websites that cover virtually the same subject and use the same crappy conspiracy arguments (we have quite a few anti-vax, anti-GMO, anti-fluoridation for instance). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Short article doesn't mean delete. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Missional, informative, no sensible reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Agreed. --Some random Smith (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Same Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
5. It's a decent enough article about a cranky alt-med website. Spud (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Is there the possibility of linking this to another article? Perhaps to the Big Pharma article. GrammarCommie (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. Notability doesn't exist on RationalWiki.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 18:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Essay:Guide to SJWs: What They Are | Result: Keep

Essay:Guide to SJWs: What They Are (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. So some idiot wrote something stupid on DeviantArt. So what? It might well have been written as a joke. But it really doesn't matter if it was or not. The person who wrote it is just some nobody on the internet, not anybody important or influential. Their stupid rant isn't going to get anybody to change their minds about anything. Far too much time and energy was asted on this at the Saloon Bar and it certainly doesn't merit its own article of any kind. Spud (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Gives up halfway through. The fact an obscure idiot wrote isn't the problem for me. Its incomplete and that's worse. Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Yes, essays should be kept except under extenuating circumstances: legal issues, primarily. Bongolian (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
2. It's an essay, we don't delete essays unless the creator wants them gone (and in this case the creator (@CJ-Moki is a sysop). Christopher (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
3. After thinking it over (and getting sidetracked) I'm voting keep. GrammarCommie (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
4. It isn't a troll essay.-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Leave it be. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Not a troll essay and longer than three sentences.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 03:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Goat

So, what's the rules on essays? I'd think essays would be deleted only under serious circumstances like pedophilia promotion, not because the content matter is something you personally find pointless and a waste of time. I think this one is pointless at best, harmless at worst, but we haven't deleted other pointless crap before especially the stuff User:Elvis is King farts out. This is a special case... how? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This. Also, we're a site dedicating to refuting crankery, and this screed posted to dA is pure crankery, so... TheMyon (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Obsession with crankery is crankery. Refuting obvious bullshit creates more useless male bovine excrement. --Some random Smith (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, the subject matter is well within RW's bounds for debunking bullshit and crankery. On the other hand, the essay appears to be abandoned so... GrammarCommie (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's abandoned, it's up to the original author to delete it. It's not grounds for AfD though. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You've convinced me, I changed my vote to keep.GrammarCommie (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• How about another option, a template for Stupid Useless Essays that we don't delete because We Don't Delete Essays? --Some random Smith (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  1. Unless we put quality standards on what exactly is a "stupid useless essay", this is not a good idea. What might be stupid and useless for one may not be for the other. We already have a category called "drive by essays" for obviously terrible essays like those screaming in all caps in buzzwords. Honestly, if you don't like useless but otherwise harmless essays, why should you care? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

David Miscavige | Result: Merged into Church of Scientology‎

David Miscavige (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Nine year old stub, recommend merging this into Scientology. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
2. ^-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 05:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Probably relatively easy to expand, for folks with an interest in Scientology. He's been at the head of the outfit for a relatively long time now, and I know I've read plenty about his shenanigans that are unique to him and postdate the Hubbard regime. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Yeah, let's merge it with Scientology. Nerd271 (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Obvious merge - David Gerard (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Ditto. Spud (talk)
4. Merge. Bongolian (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Merge makes the most sense. If the information abot this person ever gets expanded, then we can give its own article. Stub does not mean delete, especially if it has potential for expansion and isn't like two short sentences. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
6. I'll vote for a merge too, on the grounds that there's very little missional about him outside of Scientology (perhaps even nothing at all), and that Scientology changed a lot once he took over. Boredatwork (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Fun:Eamon Dunphy | Result: Deleted

Fun:Eamon Dunphy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Unfunny stub Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
2. The author didn't even try.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 19:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Might as well be a bland stub in mainspace. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Sod me! It's awful! Spud (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Human mating strategies and sexual preferences | Result: Keep

Human mating strategies and sexual preferences (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This article makes broad statements not supported by the sources in the article. Also, the article is filled with cliches. DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 04:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Non-Missional Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. This was ported over from EvoWiki. It seems to contain a lot of good, valid, and interesting information, even if it doesn't quite fit local prejudices. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. It's certainly missional (evolution). I would agree with @Smerdis of Tlön. Can @DiamondDisc1 can give us more details on which references do not support the text? Bongolian (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Same as the above. Their citation style is different from ours but that's not a problem. In-text citations are still there. Nerd (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
4. I believe it's missional. We do have articles that state pretty plainly the facts such as biology, appendix, Ichthyostega, niche, eukaryote so if you're arguing that this is unmissional because it lacks debunking and snarky attitudes toward the fringe, you'll need to consider those examples I listed. I'm not saying those examples in of alone should mean this page should stay, but you can't single out the article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Essay:PewTube | Result: Deleted

Essay:PewTube (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. The essay is one sentence and by a banned troll. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 01:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Good idea. Please terminate. Nerd (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Ready to cast the Mario Finale Final Smash whenever you are ready. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Let the ESSAYSPACE BURNNNN!!! RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
5. -💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
6. 1) It's an essay. 2) What is the evidence that this is by a banned troll? Bongolian (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

   @Bongolian The edit history shows the page was created by User:Republic. Republic had tried to impersonate User:LeftyGreenMario and was subsequently blocked. The relevant edits have since been deleted (viewable here) and you can read the discussion at the chicken coop. CowHouse (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

   OK, changing my vote to delete then. @CowHouse Bongolian (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

7. If this is an essay, than I am a Scottish lord! Don't essays need to have more than one sentence to count as an essay? I'll grab my Marshadium Z and seal this thing if I have to. Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. its an essay, let it be FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

   I think we delete talk and user pages of obvious trolls, so I think a similar standard can be applied here. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Conservapedia:JoeyJ | Result: Deleted

Conservapedia:JoeyJ (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Pitiful stub. Also, the description of said editor could pretty much match any editor at Conservapedia, which means we'd have to create a bunch more stub-level articles to cover them all. DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 03:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Not a particularly notable or controversial editor. Not particularly liked or disliked by any of the admins. Not worth bothering with. Spud (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Useless bland stub that adds nothing to our knowledge of Conservapedia, and has no jokes. Begone! Boredatwork (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
4. D, All of the above. GrammarCommie(talk)

Goat

You might also want to delete the talk page, as it consists solely of the BLP template. Boredatwork (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Uranium-235 | Result: Delete

Uranium-235 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This is already adequately covered in the nuclear power article. DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
2. OK Bongolian (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
3. ^t 14:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
4. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 03:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Per all. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Far too small Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
7. Same opinion as @DiamondDisc1. Nerd (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sean Carroll | Result: Keep

Sean Carroll (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. 4 year old three sentence stub, also do we really need all these stubs about some random author that don't really say anything valuable? DiamondDisc1(talk) 02:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. No coherent reason to delete, is better than a blank article, warrants expansion - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Sean Carroll is by no means a "random" author. He is a noted physicist and author of a commonly used textbook for undergraduates in addition to being an atheist blogger. Nerd271 (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Nope. Seems useful enough as its own article. Stubs should be deleted generally only if they provide virtually nothing useful or interesting. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

St. Elmo's Fire | Result:Merged into ghost (buggered if I know why)

St. Elmo's Fire (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with Ghost. I'm going to start bringing merge proposals here if people don't start looking at the Duplicate articles page. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Merge into ghost. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
3. ClickerClock (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
4. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 02:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Makes sense to me Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Castaigne2 (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Merge to ghost but add a sentence there to explain that although some thought St. Elmo's Fire were spirits or supernatural omens [1], it's only a weather phenomenon [2]. Also insert mandatory 1980s Brat Pack joke. Never mind, I did it, so merge away. Leuders (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. It's a physical phenomen, not a paranormal one. ^{— Unsigned, by: 195.101.194.9 / talk / contribs}

I've merged the article into the ghost one. Buggered if I know why. There doesn't appear to be any truth in the claim that used to be on the top of the page that St. Elmo's Fire is responsible for more ghost stories than anything else. And a Google search for "St. Elmo's Fire and ghosts" only returned a couple of sites that said that St. Elmo's Fire looked a bit ghostly but didn't say there was any real connection. Oh, well. It's what the mob wants. Spud (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Active users | Result: Deleted

RationalWiki:Active users (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not updated since mid-2015. Few editors here go by the usernames LArron or David Gerard have the tech skills, time, or dedication to keep this page updated every month. As a RW-space article, the longer it stays outdated, the longer it seems that the RW community does not care about the article, and by extension, the whole site. I suggest deletion, or at least a redirect to Special:Editcount. The cool graphics and stuff in the article currently can be copied elsewhere, like to the talk page, for "historical record"/"nostalgic purposes" if anyone wishes. ^t 14:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
2. What he said. яεvεятεя σғ ωαη∂αℓιsм, ραтяσℓℓεя σғ ε∂ιтs, ΓУППЯ ・「ҭагк」・асђіεѵеϻԑηтѕ・тіме: 14:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
3. I agree. Kodak (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
4. The page itself has links to a more useful special page that shows editing statistics for active users. I am not sure what the point of this page is otherwise. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
5. 2015? Has it been that long? That used to be my favourite page but it looks like it's time to scrap it. Spud (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Bigoted musicians | Result: Split into three articles

Bigoted musicians (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Each person has enough material for their own article. Christopher (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Per, these people are better off as their own articles rather than lumped into one article, especially when the criteria is apparently that they're "bigoted". More advantages to their having own articles such as detailing them, categorization, search results, and more. Honestly, why should musicians be merged into one page? Why not talk show comedians or radio hosts? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Christopher and Lefty are right. It's nice that on this occasion "Delete' means more articles instead of fewer.Spud (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Agree. It's a good page, but should be split. Bongolian (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Split - David Gerard (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
6. It would be much better if split. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Healingwell.com | Result: Deleted

Healingwell.com (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Crappy stub. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
3. My name is WonderKirby577, and this stub article is terrible. Leave it for the vultures. The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577_{Let's chat!} 02:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
4. —ClickerClock (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Delete. Hopelessly tiny stub. Bongolian (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
6. I don't think this is worthy of a Dumpster Dive. What is there to say about it? If the website hasn't been updated for 2 years, what's the point? Spud (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

#FAMAS stub. The article can certainly do more especially if it's claimed that it has crankery levels rivaling if not surpassing NaturalNews, which may I add, is a gold article. I seriously doubt it does. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. The content parts of this site, aside from the forums, hasn't been updated in over two years. There doesn't appear to be enough here to justify its own article. A paragraph in Webshites should be more than enough for this. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Dumpster Dive

1. If the alternative is setting it up for dumpster dive, then I also won't object. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Improve, not delete. Dumpster dive. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
3. See above.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 23:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
4. What they said. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 02:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Castaigne2 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Consensus?

Once more, we're at an impasse. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Affluenza | Result: Merged with and Redirected to Privilege

Affluenza (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This could also be merged into Privilege. 💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Ideally, we'd have pages like "Class and privilege", "Gender and privilege", etc, that could hold these types of articles. This is a good step. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 06:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
2. See FCP. Castaigne2 (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Goat

I think Greed is also another merge contender, though I also question why we need an article on greed as well. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax | Result: Keep

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Unclear notability & possible hack piece. Right now, he seems like a random nobody. How prominent is he? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   I thought we didn:'t care about notability. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   If nobody listens to a crank, and our article on that crank isn't very good, it's not a useful article. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   That would be true. (and the article was intended as an attack). However, $12 million, half matching funds from the state of Texas, was dedicated for the research I suggested in this peer-reviewed paper. I obviously fooled the reviewer and editors there, and that donor. I have a level of influence over many millions in research dollars. Many have complained for years about how much I write. Martin Gardner read it and quoted from it. I wrote about Wikipedia in a private email -- at length -- and a man who was on cc (I'd had no idea who he was) liked it and sent me a check with more zeros than I'd seen on a check in a very long time. On Wikipedia, I challenged an administrator who had banned me from cold fusion. Very popular, he nevertheless lost his tools over his actions. (I'll tell the story if anyone asks about how easy that was to accomplish.) Obviously, some people are listening, poor deluded souls. My old WP user talk page. (CAUTION IS ADVISED!) maybe I should put that warning here. --Abd (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

2. Abd Lomax is a minor internet eccentric who joins wikis, argues with practically everyone and gets banned, sometimes for doxing. He been banned on Wikipedia, Wikiversity and Meta-wiki for causing disruption. A few weeks ago he was globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. In his defence he claims he was framed by various Wikipedia users who do not like him. I find this hard to believe. The article continues to attract a lot of drama from Abd and has now spilled onto other websites including ED. He accuses two skeptical brothers of creating his RW article, one of these is called ODS. He continues to dox users on his website. It appears to be un-needed drama that is spilling onto different wikis. I don't see anything recent Abd has published on cold fusion. He now spends 99% of time moaning on his blog about Rationalwiki or Wikipedia users. This article plays in his favour, it gives him attention. He has been socking on RW on loads of proxies. He claims 5 of the sock accounts were his but the rest were 'impersonation'. It appears to be drama spilling out onto the website. If the article was deleted, he would then have nothing to moan about and fuck off away from this place. He is feeding off the publicity, I also believe he is making money about his RW article, because his blog is funded and he keeps writing articles on RW. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

   @Debunking spiritualism, how do you explain your voting for deletion, as well as your large number of edits both before and after, mostly adding material? Bongolian (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

   Abd has been socking and causing disruption on RW for weeks. I am getting tired of reverting his vandalism. He has written about 20,000 words about me on his blog, and several other RW users including ODS. I just wanted all this to end so started a deletion discussion. I then realised there was too many keep votes here as there was already a previous vote on this so went back to editing his article. As Abd has written so much defamation about RW on his blog, yes its unlikely his article is going to be deleted now because he has pissed everyone off over here. But like I said he is feeding off this publicity, possibly profiting out of it etc. He is also a bull-shitter he said he was suing the Rationalwiki Foundation, after I quoted him on it, he now claims this was only a thought experiment and 'speculation'. I will just have to blank this guy from now on because I am tired of his games. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

3. Thank you for opening this discussion. Abd does not have a single skeptical blog or website that has covered him. He has no media attention. He is basically a Wikipedia nut who has been banned. There is no reason to keep the article, he is feeding off the attention. Strange but True (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

   You seem to be someone's sock, @Trange but True. This is your only edit. Bongolian (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian, view my comment #9 below in the keep section.ODS (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax is notable pseudoscience promoter. He has a peer-reviewed paper in Current Science claiming cold fusion is real. He has also debated Rashad Khalifa on miracles. Abd is mentioned in a book by Martin Gardner and several others. He was also mentioned in this news report in regard to cold fusion [3] Marky (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   The paper does not claim that "cold fusion" is real. It claims that there is evidence that the "effect" is real, i.e., the anomalous heat first reported by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989, casually called "cold fusion," though the origin is not known, based on already widely confirmed production of correlated helium at a ratio consistent with nuclear transformation), and that this deserves confirmation with increased precision. Which is being done, real money being spent. That's testable, clearly so, and so not "pseudoscience." I did not "debate Rashad Khalifa" (he'd been assassinated), but rather a follower of his.

   But maybe that means I'm not of interest to RationalWiki. Real science is boring. --Abd (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   Lol, you must have a bad memory. Your own paper claims "Cold fusion is real, and it is time that serious work is funded to study the conditions of cold fusion and other correlated effects, gathering the evidence needed to understand it." Your paper does indeed claim *cold fusion is real*, in those very words! The scientific community disagrees with you. [4] Marky (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   Apparently I managed to fool the physicist who reviewed the paper. "Cold fusion" is a popular name for the heat effect described. I called for serious work -- i.e., real science, by experts, and it was funded, the troll here has no concept of science, imagines that science is a vote, and that reality depends on opinions. The paper is rooted in experimental evidence, widely confirmed. Yes, I'd forgotten about the words in the conclusion. The reviewer was originally very negative, so I rewrote the paper to communicate the evidence more effectively. The reviewer then helped write that conclusion. Yes, many remain highly skeptical, but not among those who know the evidence, and the extreme skeptical position has not been able to get published in a peer-reviewed journal for many years. Science moves on, idiots don't. And what did I come to based on the evidence? Belief? No, a declaration of what the preponderance of the evidence shows, and a call for better work, controlled experiment, to increase precision. Standard science stuff for a secondary source review. --Abd (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC).

2. He seems to pop up quite a bit touting [5] the company "Industrial Heat", which is trying to sell "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" devices, and seems to be currently involved in litigation. Bongolian (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   Industrial Heat has never offered "LENR devices." Aside from some unreliable research test beds, there are no such practical devices. Sifferkoll is a troll with no credibility, he was a supporter of Andrea Rossi, a fraud. I reported on litigation (crowd-funded, not by any party to the $270 million lawsuit, Rossi v. Darden). --Abd (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   An issue with Abd is he is calling himself a physicist and a member of an institute, but he has no degree (he admits he dropped out of university) and his "institute" is completely phony- it seems to have only one member (himself) and its website is a wordpress blog. lmao. the guy is a fraud. He reminds me of Clyde Winters who also invented an institute only he is a member of.MrOrganic (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   As far as I know Abd has not called himself a physicist, this was an error in a news report [6]. "We have direct evidence that the effect is real and is nuclear in nature," US physicist Abdul-Rahman Lomax of the Infusion Institute in Massachusetts says in his report." Would agree though, it is not a recognized scientific institute so should not be passed off as such. It appears to be a non-profit 'corporation' and he is the only member [7]. Marky (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   Correct, I have no idea where the reporter got that from. Infusion Institute pays my expenses and sponsors a blog, Cold Fusion Community, which is creating study resources, including skeptical analysis. Skepticism is essential to science. Smith ought to try it, the real thing, that is. --Abd (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

3. Keep. Any publicity is good publicity. I do prefer "wheee!" to "woooo!" Heh! Obvious conflict of interest here. So sue me. --Abd (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   Yeah, your vote doesn't count for much regarding your own page. Bongolian (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   Also, it would be best if you @Abd refrain from editing your own page. It is frowned upon on RW. If there is something that is factually incorrect on your page, contact another Sysop or state your case on the talk page. Bongolian (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   for convenience, I made one tiny edit to the page. It was easier than proposing it on talk. If I were doing this on Wikipedia, I'd self-revert it. Here, I DGAF. If it is removed, I will not edit war, I will merely generate a nuclear text bomb on the Talk page, see David's Keep below. To solicit that bomb (I listen to my fans), revert the link to my blog. However, adding snarky comments will not, unless I think of something really funny. Carry on.

4. Keep, just. He also swang round RW to promote cold fusion, though I'm not sure it's worth article note. The mods declared him "some sort of highly advanced text-producing bioweapon" - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks, David. I try. "Rational Wiki" educated me on just how smug, but dim-witted, dull, lazy, and occasionally vicious, some prominent Wikipedians are. The author of the article here created enormous disruption on Wikipedia, over years, quite distinct from the normal editor activity of normal skepticism. Once actually blocked and tagged, he has continued to create WP socks that mostly escape notice. Until he went a bridge too far and attacked Wikiversity with impersonation socks on Wikipedia. For some time, instead of actually working for the support of scientific skepticism, he has been engaged in a cross-wiki campaign of harassment. I've been told, cross him and he never gives up.

   His on-wiki (meta) parting shot. He frequently lies, bald-faced, so none of this can be trusted, and it is also possible that an enemy -- and he has made enemies -- does with him what he has done with others many times. So far, I know of no checkuser on that account. {"Paid work," if offered to him, how about to others?) Much of what he says, though, has been corroborated, such as that "a skeptic group" comment (but GS, the likely referent, is not responsible for what he has done, and that could have been a specific person, probably not the organization itself and not the woman known most prominently as the founder). He probably partitions his internet access, but mostly that may be too much bother for a low-value accounts being quickly generated. He routinely creates socks on RW, I've seen quite a few, some with definitive identification (more than the blatant and immediately obvious agenda). He also copied the RW page on me to archive.is immediately, because he can then continue to use it even if it is deleted. Back to you, David, your wiki. --Abd (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   What he wants deleted, erased, nuked (and not from just that edit, other socks clearly checkuser-identified pushed for it as well): archive.is copy. That is long, it's a draft, basically notes, put together from pieces. --Abd (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   By "I've been told" Abd means Rome Viharo, who he cites on his Wikiversity article he just linked - its the same misinformation about the same users, boring. Regardless, David is already familiar with Viharo's shenanigans and antics (Viharo even created an article on his website attacking him), so you're wasting your time trying to win over a personal army here. Take your drama elsewhere.MrOrganic (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   [edit conflict] Abd it seems you have a lot of enemies. Not me though, you are confusing me with someone else. I have nothing against you personally. I came across your paper on cold fusion a few weeks back and then decided to look you up and discovered your history of pseudoscience. I am afraid I have no idea what the majority of your comment is about. If someone was a paid editor for a skeptic group it is unlikely that will admit that on RW. Editors are anonymous here you should stop trying to out people. You seem to be writing 100s if not 1000s of words. Best thing to do is sometimes to sit back and be quiet, nobody wants to read your walls of text that have nothing to do with this discussion. Marky (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

5. Abd above has said he would like some free publicity. So I think this wiki should give it to him. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

   That's a really bad reason. Christopher (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

   It is a very bad reason. The article should be deleted. He is feeding off the publicity. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

6. A crank. Christopher (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Prominent user. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 10:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
8. Runs a small but persistent "institute" pushing fringe/pathological science (cold fusion), and is an active promoter of same in other venues. I would rather the article be about the Institute rather than the person, and focus more on refuting the ideas he is pushing, rather than showcasing details like "he is a Muslim". But on the whole this article is missional, unlike the Laird Shaw article i.e. someone who is frankly too small a fish to deserve attention from RW. Leuders (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
9. Debunking Spiritualism has been coerced into deleting the article by Lomax, since the latter has been harassing him and posting threats. I'm the other person, Lomax smears on his blog, but I don't give in to cyberbullies. So I vote to keep the article. Furthermore, even if the article was deleted, Lomax won't stop harassing DS.ODS (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
10. Abd Lomax can go fuck himself. He has abused me on his blog The zeus46 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Goat

• Wouldn't this discussion be better suited for the appropriate talk page? Discussion seems to be about dispute of the content matter rather than its viability to be its own article (i.e. is it missional or notable?). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

What is a sensible comment doing under Goat? On second thought, what better place? At this point, the socks are revert warring on the Talk page. --Abd (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile | Result: Deleted

Jimmy Savile (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Non-missional, conversation between Zack Martin and Percy shows potential for missionality, but even with those revisions it would still be only tangentially missional. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Fixating on his reputation as a child molester and necrophiliac is simply not suitable for this wiki. It doesn't help that the image caption provided, I find very disagreeable, profiling people, that's nice. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
3. I see no reason to keep his page if the only thing he did was sleep with dead people and molest kids. Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory | Result: deleted as obvious harassment

RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Appears to be bullshit promoted by Rome Viharo, originally taken from an Encyclopedia Dramatica article. Has already caused un-needed drama with trolls (probably from ED). Marky (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Nuked as a really obvious attempt at harassment. Sysops can extract anything useful if there is anything useful - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Probably worth extracting something that has citations to confirm it into the Rome Viharo page, otherwise delete. Bongolian (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Per Bongolian. At present, the article is just a trollwar sock magnet that has nothing to do with RW:MISSION. Leuders (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• Absent clear sourcing, this is useless, and simply the "Smith brothers" version of what happened, down to the same language, i.e., "zero technical evidence," which is just bullshit. It's true that some of those writing about this did not use technical evidence, but there is plenty, with the sock family attempting vigorously to get it deleted as "privacy violation" and "doxxing." As to Wikipedia usage, documenting connections between users, as in sock puppet investigations, is not doxxing, but, yes, giving a real name for an anonymous account is doxxing. So the name of this article contains doxxing, though "Smith" is so common that it is useless. I have avoided, on WMF wikis, even mentioning "Smith," but a link to a Rome Viharo page in my notes on Wikiversity (user space) -- since removed and rev-del'd -- was given and it contained the name in the URL, I had not noticed that. Here, I called the puppet master "Smith," but, that is, again, not very useful for finding information. The identified sock master name -- which is not doxxing -- is Anglo Pyramidologist, that's where most of the relevant wikipedia sock puppet investigations are located. Is Wikipedia engaged in a "conspiracy theory" because it has identified so many accounts -- some of them self-identified as "skeptic," and some who were quite abusive to their targets (Rome Viharo, for an example)? The offense on Wikipedia was not "skepticism," but sock puppetry, disruptive editing, and massive incivility. This puppet master has long solicited support from self-identified skeptics, but is scientifically ignorant and generally a fanatic, not at all a genuine skeptic, which is an honorable and important aspect of science. --Abd (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not a place to give lectures about skepticism. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax are you a genuine skeptic? Marky (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The article has since been deleted, but it was about RationalWiki, not Wikipedia. I also see no evidence for the alleged "Smiths" having Wikipedia involvement, so this is topic derail about another wiki that has no relevance. Even if you could connect a "Smith" to the Wikipedia account(s) mentioned above, so what? The conspiracy theory was about RationalWiki, not Wikipedia. As for "scientifically ignorant" - abd is a guy who admits to having no college/university degree, yet presents himself as an "expert" on cold-fusion (just run a Google search on him). His "institute" is also a mere word-press blog. This is deceptive and fraudulent; its not a real academic/research institute but a one-man crank organisation (in name only). Scientific ignorance at its worse.MrOrganic (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Duplicate articles | Result: Kept

RationalWiki:Duplicate articles (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. Right now, the AFD templates aren't suitable for setting up an obvious merge of two articles. This page is also misnamed -- it's more like "articles for discussion". Before deleting the half-decent, try to make this page decent. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 08:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   If you can't be bothered even giving a reason to delete... Nudescendant (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   @Nudescendant I didn't start this? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

2. People use it all the time, just look at the fossil record it gets used once every 2 days on average.Vorarchivist (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Changing position. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 18:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Speedy close People do use it. This is just going "oh it's not currently active DELETE DELETE DELETE NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW" like slow use of a page is somehow bad for the site. Nudescendant (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Still used, what are we meant to do with all of the "active" threads on there? People should be allowed to bring merge proposals to the afd though. Christopher (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Nobody uses this. If someone wants to merge articles, they can just present an article for merge instead of delete on AFD. The merge template would remain separate, but still link to its AFD page. We should merge this and its talk page into AFD, but leave the archives alone (they'd be displayed on a template on AFD). —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 04:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
2. ClickerClock (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Redirect to RationalWiki:Articles for deletion. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Occupy Silicon Valley | Result: Deleted

Occupy Silicon Valley (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. I read the only sourced article for this page. It predicts that "Occupy Silicon Valley" may be a movement in the future. Since this movement doesn't even exist yet, do we need a page on it? CowHouse (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
2. In answer to CowHouse's question, "No." Spud (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
3. ClickerClock (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
4. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 16:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Per all. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
6. delete Bongolian (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Kill it with fire.-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Bob Marley | Result: Deleted

Bob Marley (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Delete, or maybe merge the missional parts into Rastafari. 💠💿☝️ (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Missionality disputed since 2014, nobody rushing to its defence. Some website calling him a cult leader says more about them than it does about him. I don't want to wait in vain for someone to missionify this. Nudescendant (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
3. I think some parts can be salvaged, such as when he sought alternative treatments (though we already have Josef Issels for this. There are also conspiracy theories around his death, but it doesn't seem very notable. Cult leader part also doesn't sound very notable. Overall, the article doesn't have much reason for existing. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Handled horribly. Add to the dumpster dive or delete and add to the todo list.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 18:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   I've added it to the dumpster dive. Bongolian (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. It's missional, primarily because of the circumstances of his death: essentially death by alternative medicine. Bongolian (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

   So maybe a line about him in alternative medicine? Nudescendant (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

   I've expanded it a bit. Bongolian (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

2. The article is now good enough to survive -- and it's been added to RW:DUMP. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 14:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Albania | Result: Deleted

Albania (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Qwerty 💠💿☝️ (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
2. ^t 11:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. It's marginal, but there is the Stalinist angle. Perhaps @Krej could weigh in on this since he's an expert on the Balkans? Perhaps there's a protochronist angle with ancient Illyrians? Bongolian (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

   Sadly, I am far from being an expert. There is indeed a connection between Romanian and Albanian nationalism in that there are (if I remember correctly) individuals in both camps who claim that the two groups are both descended from Dacians and therefore "brothers" (despite the fact that the pre-Roman Balkan languages are generally not sufficiently attested to determine which was the ancestor of Albanian). This is, however, only a vague recollection, and I could not, at this time, contribute any sourced mainspace material on the subject.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 10:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

   There was also a crank theory going round in the 1970s that Albanian was related to Etruscan. I think I have the book that puts forth the theory, but it's been years. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 13:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

   The Stalinism bit is probably covered in Enver Hoxha. Apart from some semi-fun stuff about King Zog, and not-fun stuff about the economy collapsing because of a pyramid scheme in the 90's, what is there? Nudescendant (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Abortion and Nazism | Result: Merged With Pro-life

Abortion and Nazism (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with Pro-life. Yeah this should go on the Duplicate articles page but no one looks at that. DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 20:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
2. A separate article isn't needed unless the subject is lengthy and detailed enough to justify having its own article (see Evolution and Evolution and religion and Evolution and morality; and Creationism and Creationism and social history). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Bruuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 22:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
4. What 💎💿1️⃣ said. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Rand Flem-Ath | Result: Kept

Rand Flem-Ath (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Crappy article. ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 03:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Looks keepable. Perhaps someone can find a copy and expand? As ever, any missional article about an author or book(s) is inherently expandable and citable, all you need is the book. 109.204.116.189 (talk) (Sophie) 11:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Missional and more informative than nothing - David Gerard (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
3. I don't think there's any reason to delete, but this article is iffy since it's short even by stub standards. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Material is good, but too short. Merge into Atlantis article. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. A dude who wrote books about Atlantis would seem to me to be solidly on topic. Yes, the article as it stands needs to show his 'significance' in the field. (major publisher? other publicity? &c.) - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Rosa Parks | Result: Deleted

Rosa Parks (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. While it's true that Parks was NAACP-chosen, what useful information will people learn from this article that they didn't know before? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

   Maybe we can discuss about the narrative people think it's about as opposed to reality? It's already mentioned, but... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

2. —CheeseburgerFace  (talk • stalk) 20:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
3. ClickerClock (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

John Taylor Gatto | Result: Merged With Homeschooling

John Taylor Gatto (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Literally three sentences, also the person seems to be mostly obsolete. D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Maybe obsolete. May have never been relevant. Those 3 sentences don't do much of a job of saying why we should have a page about him here. After all, not everyone who provides tutoring for homeschooled students is a fundie loon. Spud (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Entirely on-mission and informative, even if short. "obsolete person" is a nonsensical non-reason for deletion - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Keep. The Wikipedia page shows some ways that it could be expanded: his links to libertarianism, and more details on his anti-public school thesis. Bongolian (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. With Homeschool, maybe? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Merge with Homeschool.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 22:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Reasons. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 09:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
4. A sentence or two in Homeschooling should cover it, unless we have a list of homeschooling advocates somewhere. Nudescendant (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. The current stub is shit, and I suspect that it will stay a stub for a long time. On the other hand, I've seen translations of this guy's books cited as support by homeschooling advocates in my own country, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --ZooGuard (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
2. I don't think it's a good thing that one of the sentences is just about Wikipedia making some little change. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Consensus?

It's been two weeks since this was nominated. The plurality of votes (3/7) are in favor of deletion, but that's not a majority. Do we decide by a majority vote, or do we decide by plurality? RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that there are two keeps and two goats, I think that the consensus is keep. Spud (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The goats are not in favor of keeping.-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "Goat" is a formal non-vote. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

All right, it now looks like the majority favour saying something about him in the homeschooling article. Spud (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Baba Vanga | Result: Keep

Baba Vanga (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Debatable whether this is missional. Most of the information presented is inaccurate (e.g. see [8] and [9]) and would require almost a complete rewrite if it were to stay. The user who wrote the vast majority of the page (User:Bryan See) has also created pages about non-existent events such as "Phobosgate". I suggest deleting the page but I'm happy to compromise by moving it back to userspace. CowHouse (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. It needs rewording and restructuring. It requires proper sourcing to make Baba Vanga a serious case, as was for Phobosgate. -- Bryan See (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
2. ClickerClock (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
3. It's missional, and I think that @CowHouse may have made sufficient edits to make this more acceptable. Bongolian (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
4. CowHouse has done a great job in replacing what was a tissue of lies with a thoroughly decent article. It's well worth keeping now. Spud (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
5. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• Clearly missional, but needs proper cleaning out - David Gerard (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Andorra | Result: Deleted

Andorra (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not missional. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Marginally missional, stub, won't be missed. Bongolian (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
3. There's some interesting trivia there but it's not really missional. Spud (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
4. ClickerClock (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Stone tape theory | Result: Merged

Stone tape theory (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Really terrible stub. DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 20:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Just merged into Ghost article. The stub's so short, we shouldn't even need an AfD vote for this. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Covered elsewhere. Anna Livia (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Wedge issue | Result: Kept

Wedge issue (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. I think this might actually be better merged with something, but this article right now is not substantial. DiamondDisc1|1csiDdnomaiD (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Unless and until someone suggests an article to merge with, I vote for deletion. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Needs improvement but I think its important. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 03:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
2. short but essential. Merely being a stub is not good grounds for deletion. Nudescendant (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
3. ClickerClock (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Probably needs more explaining. As it is, I don't think it's very informative or really explains such an abstract concept very well. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!

Liechtenstein | Result: Deleted

Liechtenstein (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not missional. 【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
2. ^t 11:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
3. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Fun:Guam | Result: Deleted

Fun:Guam (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not funny. DiamondDisc1|1csiDdnomaiD (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Yeah. It's as funny as toothache. Spud (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Slaughterate? —Kazitor, ^pending 06:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

   It's terminate!-The Terminator 00:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

   Wrong! It's EXTERMINATE!-A Dalek 00:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

4. ^t 11:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
5. ClickerClock (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sluthate | Result: Deleted

Sluthate (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Just a rant, no substance. 💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Agreed.—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 21:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
3. We deleted Broflake for similar reasons. I don't see any value for this article, which is loaded with derisive language and little else. It's badly written, not funny at all, and doesn't make our wiki look good. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Garbage! —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
5. It sucks. Bongolian (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Luxembourg | Result: Deleted

Luxembourg (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not missional. DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
2. See Monaco's Articles for deletion log. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
3. —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 21:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
4. delete Bongolian (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5. Looks like a pathetic relic from a time when we were trying to be a general encyclopedia with an atheist slant. Spud (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Stress woo | Result: Deleted

Stress woo (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Really fricking terrible. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
2. It has potential to be more than what it is right now, but right now, it has no information and needs to stay as a red link (might as well be a red link) until someone else can make a better, way more informative article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 22:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard | Result: Keep

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. While Kirkegaard's journals have red flags of pseudo-journalism, the content itself is not pure pseudoscience. Please see my conversation with FuzzyCatPotato. I couldn't find anything pseudo-scientific. According to the felixonline:
   

His activity is sprinkled with many uncited graphs and figures. But due to their concealment in a flurry of unrelated material ranging from BBC News posts to Nirvana video clips, and posts from reputable scientific sources such as Nature and Springer, it is hard to pick out the pseudoscience that would otherwise damage his scientific authority.

So I ask the mob, with this info, should the article exist? —HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 16:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Delete. Emil's a smart guy with a lot of knowledge of statistics and the scientific method - you might not agree with the focus of his research concern, but he practices science, not pseudoscience. His aim in setting up open journals with open and public peer review is laudable - where the mainstream publishers are not blocking access to a large body of original scientific knowledge without the reader having to pay through the nose, they are requiring researchers to pay through the nose; Emil makes his research, peer-review and data available for free. His approach should be celebrated, not condemned. Incidentally, it's curious that in many ways, Emil is "one of you": he, like most RationalWikipedians, is a skeptic-atheist-materialist who prizes scientific knowledge and despises pseudoscience, crankery and "woo". In a sense, to leave this article up would be to "attack one of your own".Laird (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

   Racialism is pseudo-science. Emil is also a "research fellow" for a white supremacist institute set up by Richard Lynn, that received $609,000 in grants from the Pioneer Fund between 1971 and 1996. The Pioneer Fund was founded by Nazi/fascist sympathisers and is a far-right organisation. The institute Emil is a fellow of also publishes the Mankind Quarterly described as a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment" and a "white supremacist journal" (see Mankind Quarterly); just clicking on the institute's website and you find racist pseudo-scientific literature.MrOrganic (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. You are talking about one article? Google those journals to see all kinds of racialist pseudo-science. One of Kirkegaard's journals published Nature of Race that was "peer-reviewed" for the journal by the Neo-Nazi Kevin MacDonald. This sort of stuff is as notorious as Answers Research Journal. MrOrganic (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   I don't think Kevin MacDonald is a Nazi, though I haven't read his stuff. From skimming Wikipedia, it seems that he did deny he supported Nazism. Besides, this is extremely poor research. You are trying to argue a case based on a single review. OP has published 48 papers. I don't know exactly how many reviews there are in total, but it will be around 150. MacDonald is not an internal reviewer, he was a one-time external reviewer. EmilOWK (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   MacDonald is a virulent anti-Semite who is a Holocaust denier; last year he attended an event hosted by the Holocaust denial organization Institute for Historical Review. He's also a prominent member of a Neo-Nazi/white nationalist political party - the "American Freedom Party", formerly named "American Third Position". Despite the name change, the American Freedom Party still openly identifies as white nationalist and you don't have to look far to find pro-Hitler posts on their Facebook page. Your journals are racialist junk that attract extreme anti-Semites, Neo-Nazis and other racist kooks. You should be ashamed of yourself! MrOrganic (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

   I'm not doing my own research. The methodology is questionable, however, as the quote suggests: "it is hard to pick out the pseudoscience" in his material. Show me pseudoscience in his journals.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 16:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   I think you could have misread the article, now having read it -that quote is talking about someone else? Its about some scholar, not Kirkegaard, although the latter is mentioned in the article. I also noticed RationalWiki is mentioned in the article. It says Kirkegaard is a pedophilia apologist, but this was oddly removed from his RW article recently. Regardless, if you just run some Google searches you find the fact Kirkegaard is a pedophile who wrote he supports raping kids in their sleep. He's one of the most sickening #:::Seems you're right about the quote:

Kirkegaard also has an entry dedicated to his work on RationalWiki, a resource dedicated to critically reviewing pseudoscience, accusing him of conducting racist and paedophilia-apologist pseudoscience.
Besides the questions these recent tweets raise about the scientific credibility of Dr. Perkins, his political agenda, and his suitability to teach young people at one of the country’s leading universities, they also raise concerns on the rest of his social media activity.
His activity is sprinkled with many uncited graphs and figures. But due to their concealment in a flurry of unrelated material ranging from BBC News posts to Nirvana video clips, and posts from reputable scientific sources such as Nature and Springer, it is hard to pick out the pseudoscience that would otherwise damage his scientific authority.

1. Nevertheless, the points still stand, I cannot find pseudoscience. As seen on the talkpage, Kirkegaard is anti-pedophile and the issues surrounding pedophilia advocacy are part Internet drama and quote-mining. The removal was supported by me and FuzzyCatPotato.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 17:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   Kirkegaard wrote he supports legalising child porn and proposes "as a compromise" pedophiles should rape children while they and mentally disturbed individuals I've ever read about. He even looks like a pedo in his twitter photos.MrOrganic (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   sleep; this is somehow "quote-mining" or "drama"? Kirkegaard is a pedophile/pedophilia apologist for sure. Do normal people write on their blogs they support child rape? The issue with this website is it doesn't have a zero-tolerance approach to pedophiles. And if you cannot find pseudo-science in the journals, you shouldn't be a sysop here. Are you then saying racialism isn't pseudo-science? What's next? Do you think creationism is real science too? This place needs competent sysops who actually have scientific knowledge, there's been a huge decline over the years; Bongolian and Scepticwombat are among the few left. MrOrganic (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   "Kirkegaard wrote he supports legalising child porn [blah blah blah]"

   This has been argued many times before with welliver, so I'm not going to bother further. Subjects on people need to handled with respect. Kirkegaard has said he doesn't agree that Child Porn should be legal and is not pro-pedophile, I give him the benefit of the doubt.

   "And if you cannot find pseudo-science in the journals, you shouldn't be a sysop here."

   A sysop is a regular user that cleans up vandalism. Nothing more.

   "Are you then saying racialism isn't pseudo-science? What's next?"

   I see a Slippery slope fallacy and straw man. RationalWiki doesn't support racialism. I do not see hard evidence of him supporting racialism, although he has appeared on the video "IQ And The Future Of Eugenics".—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 18:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   Just Google the institute I mentioned above. Isn't that enough? It publishes a white supremacist journal; it has 3 books for sale on the website, all of them are racialist pseudo-science, including the notorious J.P.Rushton who wrote bizarre racial theories trying to link penis size to brain size.MrOrganic (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

2. I'm voting keep. Everybody run and tell their friends!-DiamondDisc1(talk) 20:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
3. I say keep. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Keep. Even if Kirkegaard is not a pseudoscientist, he is a pseudoscience promoter by dint of his running pseudojournals that publish John Fuerst, for example. Bongolian (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sealand | Result: Merged

Sealand (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. RW is not an encyclopedia. DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 03:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep or merge into Seasteading - David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Transclude into Seasteading is a decent alternative. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
2. With Seasteading. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
3. It is missional. Merging into Seasteading is reasonable. Bongolian (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Yes. Merge into Seasteading. Spud (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Monaco | Result: Deleted

Monaco (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. The only thing missional (kinda) is the last sentence, which could be added to Tax haven. DiamondDisc1(talk) 02:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Agreed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
3. The only interesting thing in Monaco's history - when Prince Albert proclaimed himself absolute ruler, only backing down when France cut off the water supply - still isn't enough to make it missional. Nudescendant (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Delete, not even worthy of funspace as it currently stands. Bongolian (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Emcee Lynx | Result: Deleted

Emcee Lynx (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Never really became relevant, and do we need articles on everybody who has a socialist or feminist viewpoint? (Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
2. If there's nothing to debunk, or any insanity to document, there's no article to be had. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Broflake | Result: Deleted

Broflake (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Pure drama. A page on "special snowflakes" and actual psychological/sociological studies of liberals/conservatives and leftist activists might be interesting -- but this is not it. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Delete. The more generic "special snowflakes", which now redirects to psychological projection could be a reasonable page. Bongolian (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
3. This is nothing but angry shouting at the sad tossers who are doing angry shouting. Spud (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Delete. I concur.xzd5bp (xzd5bp) 08:33, 14 September 2017 (ETC)

   @Xzd5bp Why did you make the the page then? Christopher (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

   @Xzd5bp Calm down. Just trying something. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

   @Xzd5bp Well, don't try anymore!! It made me vomit!! It was diarrhea inducing! Horrible! Awful! Pure drivel! It was worse than Ishtar!

   @Xzd5bp Okay, then. Point taken. Let's not bugger up our knickers in the dishy doddle.

   @Xzd5bp What are you talking about?! You're not funny! Go back to Loserpedia!

   @Xzd5bp Nah. There're too many losers on Loserpedia.

   @Xzd5bp Then you should fit in!

   @Xzd5bp Ouch! Check mate! Put a fork in me. I'm done.^{— Unsigned, by: Xzd5bp / talk / contribs}

   ?????????? Christopher (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

5. Just awful. Christopher (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
6. This article is just a rant. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
7. We're not urban dictionary. This isn't a deeply authoritarian movement, just an pejorative(though not entirely inaccurate) term for one aspect of their membership. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
8. This one's not even appropriate for the funspace. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Dominica | Result: Redirect to Operation Red Dog

Dominica (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. The only missional thing in this article is already covered in Operation Red Dog. DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 23:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Agreed. Spud (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Redirect the page to Operation Red Dog. —(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
2. ClickerClock (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Gretta Vosper | Result: Deleted

Gretta Vosper (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Very hard to expand into a satisfactory article;already mentioned in the Atheism article. (Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
2. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 16:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
3. ClickerClock (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. With the Atheism article. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

PlanetMofo | Result: Deleted

PlanetMofo (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This page appears to be about somebody who posts comments on websites. The page doesn't even say which websites. So there's somebody out there who might be a Neo-Pagan posting racist, anti-Christian and pro-abortion comments on some website somewhere. Wow! Hold the front page! Spud (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
2. -ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Delete. Bongolian (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
4. ClickerClock (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Clive Palmer | Result: Deleted

Clive Palmer (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Non-missional, pitiful, 2015 stub. —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 16:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
2. -ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 16:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
3. In its current state, it's completely non-missional. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

   That's not really a coherent statement - missionality would be an aspect of the topic, not the writeup - David Gerard (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

   Then the article needs a "missionality" tag. I'll get to it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

4. ClickerClock (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Highly missional: a near-bllionaire who literally bought his way into Parliament - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Bra | Result: Keep

Bra (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs)

Delete

1. Completely off-mission and utterly pointless.^{— Unsigned, by: Bigljbigl / talk / contribs}

Keep

1. Well-sourced rebuttals of psuedoscience and folk science. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 14:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
2. This is an article? Whatever Fuzzy said, then. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Neither off-mission nor pointless. A surprisingly good article. Spud (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
4. It was once bad, but I improved it.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 19:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
5. Keep: missional with references. Bongolian (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Internationalism | Result: Deleted

Internationalism (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs)

Delete

1. Indefinite stub. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 00:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Missional, but a stub with few references. Delete. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
3. -ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 05:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. We do articles on a bunch of other political philosophies. ClickerClock (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Helen Caldicott | Result: Keep

Helen Caldicott (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Pitiful stub; whoever votes "keep" better expand the article, a lot. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

   Tu quoque is not a good counterargument. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

2. Unless she suddenly becomes relevant again, no one will ever expand this. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
3. —HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 23:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Hi, I'm your standard keep user. When I see a shitty artice, we both know, it's a shitty article. I'm never going to fix this article, but I hope somebody will. But in the end, we both know nobody will ever do so. I mean it's missional. So every missional article on this wiki stays. In fact, everyone on this wiki should pump out 20 shitty articles a day, because this is what this wiki needs, so long as the topic is missional. I never looked at the article.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 23:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

   We've deleted missional articles before, because they weren't good. We don't want to create a bunch of shitty articles for the sake of missionality, we want to create a moderate amount of articles that can start out small, but we expand later. The story would be different if this article was just created. But it's not. This article is three years old, and has barely been expanded past its starting point. No one has any desire to expand it, so we should either scrap it or expand it right now. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

   I made this post to be an asshole.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 23:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

   Ah, I see. I'm kind of bad at that whole "understanding sarcastic text" thing. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

2. It's [1] an unexpanded stub, but it's not [2] hopelessly stubbish or [3] useless. Considering that the top article online is Wikipedia's hagiograpahy, this article should exist as a counterweight if nothing else. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Per. We shouldn't delete stubs if they're substantial enough, even if they remain as is. In this case, there is no reason to bend backward and delete sufficiently lengthy stubs. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Useful and informative, no coherent reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
5. Same reasons as Fuzzy. Christopher (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Fun:DeviantArt | Result: Deleted

Fun:DeviantArt (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Check the websites mainpage. This website's has shitty artist but also has the most talented ones too. This article is not funny and paints the website in a false light. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 03:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
2. 
   The ED farticle on this topic covers it sufficiently. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Unrelated to mission. ClickerClock (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Saw what looked like vandalsim and reverted it, but yeah, the page is a non missional screed and needs to go. Leuders (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Extreme wingnuttery & Category:Extreme moonbattery (2nd nomination)| Result: Merged

Category:Extreme wingnuttery (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) & Category:Extreme moonbattery (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge

1. This proposal applies to both "extreme wingnuttery" and "extreme moonbattery": since they have been divided into subgroups and now only contain 3-4 subcategories each (and both names are somewhat tautological, as aren't moonbattery/wingnuttery extreme by definition?), I advocate that these two categories be replaced by a single category called something like "Political insanity", that will contain all 6-7 of the moonbattery/wingnuttery subcategories, along with "Centrist stupidity", so that they can all be in the same place. If you participate in this discussion and are in favour of this "merge" proposal, please state what you think the new category should be called - it could be "political insanity", "political stupidity" etc. --Yisfidri (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

   Why not have a cat called "political insanity" or whatever and put extreme moonbattery, extreme wingnuttery and centrist stupidity in it? Christopher (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

   Well yes, that's a possibility, but I'm thinking that the merge proposal would "save" on one level of categorization by comparison (i.e. a simpler category tree) - I don't think 7-8 categories (all the variants of moonbat/wingnut/centrist stupidity) are too many to have in a single "Political insanity" category. From my POV the names "extreme m/w" also sound a bit tautological, and almost give the impression of being specific variants of moonbattery/wingnuttery (i.e. distinct from the authoritarian/libertarian etc variants) rather than catch-all categories. --Yisfidri (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

2. Combining them makes sense. I think the new page should be called something like Political Instability, because if you have a lever and there is too much of something on one side, you end up with a broken lever.Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
3. Changing vote. MERGE THESE MOTHER******S!Ahem. I think we should merge them. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
4. I don't even know why we made separate categories to begin with Vorarchivist (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
5. ClickerClock (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
6. Suggested names: either "Political nuttery" or "Extreme nuttery". Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 16:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

#Barring Horseshoe theory, these guys are crazy in different ways. Keep them separate. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth: I don't think the proposal advocates merging the two because they have something in common: being extreme positions. Instead, it's to essentially remove the two categories since they seem to serve only as hubs for the subcategories nested inside there. If you look inside extreme wingnuttery, for instance you'll find three more categories. I think the proposal is to place these three subcategories (and more) under a broader label, "Extreme politics" or "Political insanity". In other words, if the proposal passes, there will be a category called "Political insanity" and it'll contain Category:Authoritarian wingnuttery, Category:Conservative wingnuttery, Category:Libertarian wingnuttery, Category:Authoritarian moonbattery, Category:Feminist moonbattery, Category:Liberal moonbattery, Category:Libertarian moonbattery, and Category:Centrist stupidity. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right. --Yisfidri (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Keep. Evil Zionist (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
2. They are two separate things. Just because they're very similar doesn't make them worthy of merging. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete

1. These had the majority votes to be deleted in the first enty, but weren't deleted because a)no clear consensus was made and b)it was too much work to delete in every article. "These categories are so vague and arbitrary as to be meaningless."—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 19:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

   "too much work to delete in every article", can't we just use a bot or use an edit tool that lets you edit a particular string (e.g. you delete the [[Category:Extreme wingnuttery]] string) that can affect a ton of pages at once (I forget the name of that tool)? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

   It's too much work if you don't understand how to use terminal commands.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 22:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

   I'd be happy to do it with HotCat like I did with unremitting horror. Christopher (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

   ok (a) I can easily do changes like with with The Fuzz, (b) this category is useful for holding all the other categories Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Tasseography | Result: Merged

Tasseography (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Can someone remake this article so that it isn't awful? DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I agree with the merge crowd. I apologize for jumping to deletion instead of finding another way.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 20:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It's alright. You thought it was the best option at the time, and I probably would have made the same judgment too. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

And, well, I did. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

-DiamondDisc1(talk) 21:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. diamond disc wants somebody else to improve an article he doesn't like. Doesn't look like grounds for deletion from here. Nudescendant (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
2. I have expanded the article. There is not a whole lot to say about this divination practice in particular. Too well known for us to ignore entirely. I wouldn't terribly mind if this were merged with a general page on folk divination practices, but I'm not sure we have that article yet either. Again we're still a wiki, and being a stub is no reason to delete an article. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

   Liberapedia has a major stub issue. We don't want that, do we? People need to realize that having a lot of stubs is not a good thing.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 16:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

   We have a somewhat more lively base of editors than they do. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Perhaps have a general 'folk divination methods' page - as most will individually be too marginal for RW. Anna Livia (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Merge to divination. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
3. What FCP said.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 17:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Yeah. Also, we should do the same with the Palmistry article. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

   There's much more to say about palmistry than about tea leaf reading, and a much bigger literature. One day I may get around to it. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

5. Better option.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 20:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Bartlett | Result: Deleted

Bruce Bartlett (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Marginally missional stub that's unlikely to be updated or expanded. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Please see Talk:Bruce Bartlett#Missionality as well. Andrew5 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
3. What exactly is here that isn't in the Wikipedia article? Also other than som snark how is this on subject?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Pretty lame. Seems like a decently rational guy. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 17:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

   I mean, to be fair to him, we do have articles on other fairly rational people. Andrew5 (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

5. Per cosmik. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Goat

Rating is 5-0; the page has been vaporized. Check diff logs. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 14:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Formatting close and doing the procedual stuff. Andrew5 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wait, @TheJakeHolmesVersion, don't we normally leave the talk page intact? I thought we didn't huff them. Andrew5 (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know about that. I will revert that. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 14:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Vote of No-Confidence | Result: Deleted

Vote of No-Confidence (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not an encylopedia FuzzyCatPotato of the Frisky Microscopes (talk/stalk) 22:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Agreed.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 22:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
3. -D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
4. As much as I hate to see PoliSci articles go, we're not an encyclopedia. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. We could discuss the difference between various procedures and compare and contrast with impeachment in the US Evil Zionist (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

   How's this missional?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 16:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

   Dispelling American Exceptionalist myths? Exploring alternative constitutional arrangements? Evil Zionist (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Monica Crowley | Result: Kept

Monica Crowley (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Expand or delete. DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 17:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
2. —CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 17:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Nope, just because it's a stub doesn't mean it should be deleted. There is no reason to delete this article even if it remains untouched. The important thing is that it has enough information for our readers to get a fair bit of understanding on the subject and deleting it just because it's too short removes that information. Not good, especially when this page has sources. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
2. It's not [1] an unexpanded stub, [2] hopelessly stubbish, or [3] useless. It's skimpy on sources and full of hot air, but that's not so unusual here. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
3. No more 'expand or delete', please. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 23:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Bad deletion reason. Missional, informative and there's nothing wrong with it - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Doctor's Data | Result: Kept

Doctor's Data (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Seven years old, and still a stub. DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 17:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
2. —CheeseburgerFace  (talk • stalk) 18:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Long and informative enough to be its own article and its relationship with QuackWatch is worth keeping IMO. It sucks we have a stub that's untouched for 7 years but it doesn't mean we should delete it. This isn't like the other stubs we deleted where they have conveyed virtually no information. Counter-arguing with "why don't you expand" sounds too tu quoque so don't do it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
2. All the links necessary for a good article are in the External links. It's [1] an unexpanded stub, but it's not [2] hopelessly stubbish or [3] useless. On net, it should stay. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Entirely missional and more informative than no article, no reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Its not that much of a stub in my opinion Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. Missional, but still a stub. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Monomania | Result: Deleted

Monomania (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. RW is not an encyclopedia. (Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
2. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 18:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Literally zero sources, no clear missionality. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. To some list of mental issues / biases. FuzzyCatPotato of the Minuscule Kerfuffles (talk/stalk) 19:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Modern Whig Party | Result: Deleted

Modern Whig Party (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Hasn't really done anything important, also the article is a stub. ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
2. I'm an obsolete person.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 16:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
3. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Sinclair Broadcast Group | Result: Merged

Sinclair Broadcast Group (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Missional subject, pitiful stub. FuzzyCatPotato of the Opaque Gurus (talk/stalk) 00:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Agreed.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 00:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
3. -💠💿☝️ (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
4. We have always deleted bad stubs. Unless someone can at least come up with some references and/or expansion, delete it. It's certainly missional. Bongolian (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

   The contents have not been subsumed within the new page Alt-right media groups. I will change this page to a redirect. Bongolian (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

5. Too vague. Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Is this still a wiki? And if so, since when is being a stub reason to delete a missional article? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 00:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

   See my essay.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 01:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

2. Missional, more informative than nothing (though I concur it still needs approximately everything) - David Gerard (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
3. I could change it into a draft and then bring it back into mainspace when people have made it big enough. Also, stub, but young enough to be fixed. —LJL (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
4. I think it's a stub, but it's informative enough, just barely meets the bare minimum to have its own page. This isn't like the other stubs we deleted which conveyed no interesting information. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
5. Expand, don't delete. Evil Zionist (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

   So you volunteer to fix the page?—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 22:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

   That's not a good counterargument. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

6. It was created less than a month ago. It really shouldn't be nominated for deletion until it's at least six months old. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Goat

#Has potential, needs expansion. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

We lump all the stubs into a new article, possibly titled "Alt-Right Media Groups." Stubs like this one can then be merged and redirected to that page. We keep the content, and we get rid of the stubs. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd support this too.-💠💿☝️ (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Pete DeGraaf | Result: Deleted

Pete DeGraaf (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Literally three sentences. (Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
2. "But it's missional"—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 17:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
3. This would be a stub that should be deleted. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
4. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
5. Even the WP article is pretty drab. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 19:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Halal soup controversy | Result: Merged into Halal

Halal soup controversy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Obsolete, and a stub. Please don't vote "keep" and say it's because you're an obsolete person, that makes no sense. ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
2. I'm an obsolete person. Add to todo list.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 23:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

   👏..👏…👏-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

3. I've just merged this into Halal. Delete away. Nudescendant (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

En Marche! | Result: Redirected by Sysop Fiat

En Marche! (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Non-missional stub. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 17:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
2. -💠💿☝️ (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
3. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

Should I just merge this into Emmanuel Macron? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 18:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

That should be good. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff | Result: Delete

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Obsolete person, also stub. ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Let's take this seriously and try to get this discussion back on track. She was someone who made headlines in Austria seven years ago. She's not important now. Spud (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
3. This article sucks.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 00:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
4. What is this site's obsession with keeping stubs and not expanding them?-I hate stubs (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
5. Too small to salvage. —LJL (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. A person is a person no matter how obsolete. Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Missional, no reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
3. I hope they feel better soon. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
4. Missional subject. The rise of blasphemy laws is a big deal. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

   It can be put on the todo list. The article in its current state sucks.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 01:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• I object to this deletion on behalf of obsolete people everywhere. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Fun:Stealth cactus | Result: Delete

Fun:Stealth cactus (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. gods no FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Cacti, and by extension stealth cacti are not native to Panama. Why is there a picture of a Panama native and supposed cactus if he is not indigenous to Arizona? Spectral Thief Marshadow (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
3. Gave me a smile, but it's stupid funny, not clever funny. Our guidelines disapprove the former.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 02:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
4. A good example of being stupid and just not funny. Spud (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
5. -ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. I like it. —LJL (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

False light | Result: Delete

False light (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Totally off-mission and only created in order to stir ongoing legal drama. Recommend speedy delete. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 05:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Non-missional. Delete. Bongolian (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
3. The user ("heyguy") who created the article is a sock of Rome Viharo. View "heyguy's" talk-page for evidence - behaviourally (he types like Viharo and uses his key phrases) and his first few edits were to try to unlock RV's article; also agree above "created in order to stir ongoing legal drama".86.14.2.77 (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
4. Hopelessly off-mission. Christopher (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep

Not only should this be a well citationed article (I just created the stub) that is very relevant in our current online political climate, but I believe it should also become a responsible editing guideline. Heyguy (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is not surprising, or troubling that .86.14.2.77 who was involved in the "false light" creations of not just the article he mentioned but the recent impersonation of Emil Kirkegaard as well and stalked my user page is actually apart of a consensus to remove community awareness of the "false light" principle. Heyguy (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"Hopelessly off mission" apparently to at least a few users here, hence the necessity to build community awareness on this principle. Heyguy (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• Probably relevant to something, not convinced it's entirely unmissional. But would need better refs - David Gerard (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

1984-85 miners' strike | Result: no consensus

1984-85 miners' strike (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Unclear missionality. This sorta stuff would do better in a "History of UK/Britain/etc" article -- or really, not anywhere at all. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

   It has info on union history, and isn't union coverage missional? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

   Maybe -- but it'd go better in that article than on its own. Unions relate to anti-authoritarianism, but we're not-an-encyclopedia of all things union. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 11:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

2. As a separate article, the way it looks now? Fugeddaboudit! However, I'm sure some of its overly-specific-yet-overall-incomplete narrative could be ported to somewhere? Like some article(s) on Thatcher/UK energy policy/global warming/unions/neoclassical economics/etc... But we're not keeping it as a standalone article, methinks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Fine by me - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Seems to me to be an even bigger deal in UK history than the breaking of the air traffic controllers' union in the USA, which was a turning point in US history. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. I'm not British so there might be something that makes it justified as its own article but as it stands we should add it to an article on striking or labor movements or even make a history of the British labor movement as a page but as it stands there are many other similar events across many countries and I don't think that they all deserve their own pages. ^{— Unsigned, by: Vorarchivist / talk / contribs}

TaraElla | Result: deleted

TaraElla (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. The article doesn't necessarily merit deletion. However, it's not missional to document every relatively mainstream view held by every political commentator. We should cut down to controversial views and pseudo-scientific views, if any; if none (or if none worth discussing), delete. FuzzyCatPotato of the Hideous Lollipops (talk/stalk) 00:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Pretty sure not missional. Doesn't pass the "so what?" test for me - David Gerard (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

   Why is this not missional?Wikibalance (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

3. Not being mainstream is a red herring. See her content and most of it is opinion based.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 15:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

   But the content of most subjects included in RW are opinion based. So what do you mean?Wikibalance (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

4. I am the subject of this article, and I object to being painted as some sort of closeted conservative crank.TaraElla (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. In the latest revision, I have more clearly refuted some of TaraElla's controversial beliefs. I think the new version would provide some balanced background information on TaraElla's statements vs how other people see the same topics, and would provide a useful balanced context for people reading TaraElla's articles or books. Feel free to add more.
   I think that this kind of balanced analysis of a writer's beliefs and statements is definitely missional for RW. If somebody reads her work and decide to Google her name for more information, it would be helpful if they found this article.Wikibalance (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
   p.s. I would classify her 'GLIF' as a crank idea, as well as her view on intersectional feminism as a whole. Documenting as many crank ideas as possible is missional for this site.^{— Unsigned, by: Wikibalance / talk / contribs}

   GLIF is NOT a crank idea.TaraElla (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

2. GLIF is a dangerous idea and will confuse people about what real intersectional feminism is. TaraElla is bascially a conservative dressed up as a liberal so we need to refute her. So keep.202.159.161.186 (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

   You really think so?TaraElla (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. I definitely agree we shouldn't cover every single crank out there, however, I'm aware not everyone agrees. I think we should focus on people who have gained a widespread attention, such as Alex Jones, who influence the alt-right as a whole. Individuals such as Bob Willington and people who I never will hear of again don't influence public opinion. Heck, Jontron is outspoken about his opinions, but hardly effects the alt-right aside from memes. Cranks are abundant and so long as someone out there is having babies, cranks aren't going to stop being produced. Instead of trying to cover all the cranks out there, I think we should focus on the articles we have and try improving those. We have so many stubs and I've brought this issue to light in the saloon bar. However, deleting this article merits that we delete many other articles which in and of itself requires community approval. In other words, I don't think this is the time or place to be making major decisions on what the website should focus on.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 01:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

   That's a useful insight -- feel free to add to Essay:Why notability is stupid and I hate it. I'm not saying we should delete all unnotable people -- just that this person doesn't have much MISSIONAL content. What's there to cover -- that she doesn't like Wikipedia's notability policy? So what? How can we even "debunk" her position on the notability policy? In short: No debunkable material = no article. FuzzyCatPotato of the Seaworthy Flagellas (talk/stalk) 01:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

   Well, the article in the current state is not missional, however, TaraElla does have a few refutable things:

   She makes wide generalities on liberals:[10]

if you do not support freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience to the max, you are NOT a liberal.

1. But then we get a lot this:[11]

intersectional feminism, or even feminism more generally, should be able to empower everyone, by breaking barriers to equal opportunity based on gender. It is becoming clearer and clearer that traditional feminism has failed to deliver in this regard, leaving perhaps the majority of women behind while serving as an intellectual hobby for a relatively few. Hence the rise of intersectional feminism. But my point is, even intersectional feminism, as it is practiced now, does not really deliver either. Why? It is still leaving the vast majority of women behind. Attempts to include ethnic minorities and queer women are to be congratulated, but this does not mean feminism has become truly inclusive. Not yet.

1. I think that X idealogy should be this and that. I've found a couple of obviously wrong statements, but I've found several that contain a lot of "muh opinions".—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 02:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

   I think there's no evidence of actual missionality here - David Gerard (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

2. I am not convinced by the article that she is asserting anything that's really missional. Simply being a feminist with her own idiosyncratic version of feminist cant is not enough; that's a vital part of the project for some, it seems. Nor is wanting to revise Wikipedia policies; they're surely subjects for legitimate debate, even if they're online molehills being made into mountains, that's just the internet for you. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Doctrine and Covenants | Result: Keep

Doctrine and Covenants (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. So this is obviously meant to be like Biblical foreknowledge, except that it's Mormon scriptures foreknowledge. And everybody knows that the Mormon scriptures weren't written thousands of years ago, they were written in the 19th century. So this page is pointing out that there's a passage of Mormon scripture that predicted the American Civil War some 29 years before it started. I can't see that that's very impressive. Surely loads of people back then thought that it was only a matter of time before the North went to war with the South. But this page, in its current form, seems to suggest that was some kind of marvelously miraculous prediction. Spud (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't nominate for deletion because it was a stub. i nominated it because it seemed to be saying, "Woo! They predicted the Civil War! It's a miracle!" Anyway, now that Smerdis of Tion has expanded the page so much, my previous reasons no longer apply. Spud (talk)

Keep

1. some trivial work could make the page usable -- give it a day FuzzyCatPotato of the Slippery Blenders (talk/stalk) 12:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Just being a stub is no reason to delete an obviously missional subject. This is Joseph Smith the prophet's writing, and considered scripture by the Mormon Church. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

   I have expanded the article with further information about this interesting text. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. Someone needs to expand it to make it worth keeping, but the person who created the page seemed uninterested. Expand or delete. Bongolian (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

British Isles | Result: Redirect

British Isles (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not missional. 💠💿☝️ (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. The page basically exists to showcase the very useful and helpful diagram from Wikimedia Commons. The same diagram is also on the United Kingdom page. I suggest turning the British Isles page into a redirect to the United Kingdom one. (I am, of course, aware that some parts of the British Isles aren't in the United Kingdom so don't bother pointing that out to me.) Spud (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Merge it and make British_Isles a redirect. ~ ♥ 12:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
3. —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 21:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
4. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Periannan Senapathy | Result: Since the one who nominated it for deletion changed his mind, it looks like it can stay

Periannan Senapathy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

• 💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Oops (EDIT: vote discounted but strikethrough doesn't turn off for some reason)

Keep

I don't see the page you're citing ("list of scientists who don't believe in evolution"). Keep, or possibly merge if you can find the page. Bongolian (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Greyhound Therapy | No page about mental health to merge it into, deletion was the only option

Greyhound Therapy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Possibly illegal, probably immoral, but not missional. Bongolian (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Since there is no mental health care article, I'm saying delete. Spud (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
3. -💠💿☝️ (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
4. Describes criminal nehavior. Doesn't hit any missional points. If someone thinks the topic is missional, add it to the todo list.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 03:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Castaigne2 (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
2. While the current article itself is an abandoned stub, I don't see any problem with intrinsic missionality here. It's an established expression, and we certainly cover those. With a {{langnav}} and some elbow grease, we'd be left with a passable RW article on the expression in question. Voilá. Assuming someone is willing to put in the work, that is. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
3. It's an interesting subject!!!!Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The vote is closed. Christopher (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

• Maybe add into article on mental health care? The portions about doctors dumping tough cases is definitely missional (abusing stats is bullshit, too). The rest is possibly interesting. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I could support that. Bongolian (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

1. ClickerClock (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Vorarchivist (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC) I second adding it into some other mental health article if it's not missional enough
3. The only sensible option. Spud (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Support this. Contractor (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
5. Same here. Could add that it happens in the UK too, although probably under a different name. Bicycle^wheel 13:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
6. Probably late, but what FCP said. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

   a. Reality alert: it appears we don't actually have an article on mental health care. Bicycle^wheel 12:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

   Well Greyhound Therapy is the new start of our new mental health care article. ClickerClock (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

   Sorry to be a spoilsport, but — speaking of "reality alerts" — we're not having an article titled 'mental health care'. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

   The prison article briefly goes into pyschiatric hospitals. Probably the best place to add it?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 03:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Policy poll | Result: SNOWDelete

RationalWiki:Policy poll (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Something created by FAMAS in hopes other people would use it. They didn't. Bicycle^wheel 17:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
2. This doesn't need an AFD tbh. It's not like we're getting anything quality from that user. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
3. As per above, I've gone ahead and SNOWDeleted the whole thing (after all of four hours). Hertzy (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Snark | Result: Delete

Category:Snark (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Obsolete as all of our articles meant to have snark. Christopher (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
2. ClickerClock (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Castaigne2 (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
4. As above. —Kazitor, ^pending 11:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
5. The very definition of 'superfluous'. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Could this category be redefined instead? It seems like it lists articles that are mainly about snark, which includes articles on parodies or Funspace, which is all snark. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That could work, I'd support that. Christopher (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd support that too Vorarchivist (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope nope nope. That would imply that people would read about the category before slapping it on every page they see. Existence = misuse. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry @FuzzyCatPotato but I support it.--Rimuru Tempest (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fuzzy, I'd check through it regularly and clear out any articles not about snark, the problem is whether we have enough snark related articles to warrant a category. Christopher (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

San Marino | Result: Delete

San Marino (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. RW is not an encyclopedia, also this country doesn't appear to have done something worth having an article on. 【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
2. When the article itself repeatedly goes on about how undeserving of attention San Marino is... Bicycle^wheel 20:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
3. Delete in its current state, but if anyone can look into the category it's placed (in Category:Tax havens) and expand accordingly, then it may be worthy of its own page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

   Maybe as part of a list of tax havens but it's not a particularly noteworthy one, unlike say the British Virgin Islands. Bicycle^wheel 20:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

   Fair enough. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

4. Agree. Bongolian (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
5. All of the reasons given above. Christopher (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

The Worst Argument in the World | Result: go directly to Scott

The Worst Argument in the World (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Currently a listicle that doesn't even define what the article is about. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 06:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
2. we could use an article about generalising from extremes, but this isn't it. Bicycle^wheel 09:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Scott Alexander did a degree in philosophy and he still has the terrible LessWrong habit of neologism and shouldn't be encouraged - David Gerard (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. I've found since creating the article that this is an example of the Association fallacy so it should probably merge there Deku-shrub (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
   • As long as that discourages anyone ever recreating it - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Merge, and keep the reference to the Scott Alexander piece. FWIW we probsbly could use an entire page on the slogan 'taxation is theft. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Merge, probably to Scott Alexander article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
4. Merge with Scott Alexander. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Merge to the Alexander article and leave a redirect. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
6. -ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Reddit | Result: Kept

Reddit (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not the article as a whole. The subreddits section is pretty shit. Any relevant content would be better served on related articles, like MRA for /r/TRP, etc. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

   Above reason.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 03:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. let's keep it so the true colors of liberals can be on display with such unhinged bigotry! --Elvis is King (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

   So, I think this counts as a vote for delete. FuzzyCatPotato of the Clammy Kumquats (talk/stalk) 00:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

   No, he's for real. (Probably also believes Elvis isn't dead.) I'm going to say the kindest possible thing about Elvis as I can; that is, to simply not say anything at all about him and take advantage of his decaying body as weight on this side of the scale. ~ <3 07:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

   Elvis calling anything else "unhinged bigotry" is quite possibly the most ironic thing I've seen on this site. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

2. I read this page years ago when it was genuinely a weak (mostly by size) but definitely improvable article, and I'm pleasantly surprised to find it quite as much bigger as it is. I'm still giving it a thorough reading to attempt to determine whether or not it is better as opposed to merely bigger, but so far I'm really not seeing the kind of quality drop that would justify violently gutting the biggest part of the article. Also: when you make an edit like this, could you try to have the edit summary link (as best one can, at least, given the way wikis work) to where the agreement was formally agreed upon between agreers to have an article assassinated, so that you don't forevermore have the occasional annoyance of people going through the fossil records and asking you about it haunting yo^oo_oo^oo_ooooou? ~ <3 07:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Castaigne2 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
4. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Tinribmancer (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Spoony (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• I have moved on the talk page many a time to just trash the list of subreddits. It's for annoying idiots to whine about fights they lost, and Plutoniumboss to write tedious bloggy rambles. Let's kill it - David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I find this page (and all the "tedious bloggy rambles") useful because, as someone who realized very early on (even before 4chan imploded, I think) that it was basically the new and improved 4chan, I never really visit unless linked to it, so it's really neato to be able to read about Reddit without slogging through Reddit itself. I sampled the last dozen or so edits by Plutonium boss, and the only one I found questionable was "It's swiftly becoming a site entirely made of YouTube comments." ...but seeing as I don't visit Youtube (or at least the comments section thereof) very much either, I can't entirely affirm nor deny the accuracy of it. (Could someone else help provide input on that, please?)

In any case, the last three months saw only eight edits to the page, and half of those were [name unpronounceable] adding (in his usual parkinsons-afflicted manner) a single sentence (which was reverted anyway), ...so I think we can safely say we can simply leave it under semi-protection, as that seems to be doing its job. ~ <3 18:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Also, wouldn't this qualify as internet drama? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So...

The vote currently stands at two to delete, six to keep, and it's been up for twenty days. I think it's fair to say the "keeps" have it. Any objections? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That's what we call consensus. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Toledo War | Result: merged to Fun:Ohio

Toledo War (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. An interesting bit of trivia that's got bugger all to do with our mission. Spud (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Agree: it's non-missional, and I don't see how it could become missional. Bongolian (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

Should I merge the page with Ohio or Michigan? Both? -Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 07:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Someone, salvage something from the inevitable denialist circles! ;P --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Fun:Justin Bieber | Result: Delete

Fun:Justin Bieber (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. It's not really funny, it's just really weird, and it's not that relevant anymore. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

   Somehow, Fuzzy's edit makes it worse. This is the sort of stuff I'd expect from 1d4chan, not us. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

   Still not funny and still reeks of humor like, half a decade ago. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

2. Lines like "He is widely considered the most evil person in history", the repeated references that is all about how evil this guy is, crossing the line by comparing him to terrible world leaders, really reeks of tryhard humor. This makes me wince more than laugh. Can we just not stoop to this level and resort to just facts? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Nope. Christopher (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

QualiaSoup | Result: Deleted

QualiaSoup (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not active anymore, and he mostly did collaborative work with his brother. A merge at least? Spoony (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Nothing in this article explains why he's missional. He makes "videos discussing various aspects of philosophy, theism, atheism and morality" but what does he actually say? If the original author of this couldn't tell us, why should anyone else care? Delete. Bicycle^wheel 10:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Talking of the original author, his articles The Periodic Table of Videos and Sixty Symbols are also pointless for RW purposes. Bicycle^wheel 10:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Pseudoscientist | Result: Delete

Template:Pseudoscientist (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Rather pointless and not used very much. Doesn't look particularly good either. Christopher (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
2. It's not very sexy. Spud (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Provides room to other psuedoscientists. Contractor (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

   What does "provides room to other psuedoscientists" mean? Christopher (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

   In the sense that we are giving more space to pseudoscience field, despite a standard template can be still used. Contractor (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

   Oh, I see. Christopher (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

4. Castaigne2 (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Like other infoboxen, this provides a useful at-a-glance assessment of the featured pseud. Ithaca8 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Unlike some other, purely derogatory templates, this looks rather useful. What it might need is more usage and publicity. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. I think a generalized "TLDR box" could be a good idea. This one is a bit specific and isn't exactly gorgeous. 19:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't like how this pushes the category box. This box have to be placed somewhere else in the article if it's to be used in more articles. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

1. this will have to be redone if its going to be used Vorarchivist (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Wilkow | Result: Delete

Andrew Wilkow (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Has he endorsed conspiracy theories? Encouraged authoritarianism? Peddled pseudoscience? Spouted lies? Flip-flopped? Conservatism itself isn't missional. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 19:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Who cares? Not missional. Christopher (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Nothing here, apart from "he's a conservative talk show host" and they're two a penny. His main target appears to be one state's branch on the Democrats, which isn't... oh god just delete it. Bicycle^wheel 21:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Philosopher | Result: Redirect to Template:Philosophy

Template:Philosopher (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Duplicate of {{Philosophy}} ClickerClock (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

1. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. There's nothing to discuss here. I've made the page a redirect to the Philosophy template. Problem solved. Case closed. Spud (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Morgue | Result: Deleted

Morgue (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Article on living person lacks sources. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 12:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Nuke - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
3. No need for afd, was speedily deleted before. Christopher (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Clustering illusion | Result: Speedy close, take it to the duplicate articles page

Clustering illusion (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. No reason to merge, it's a separate thing. It'd be a section there too - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
2. No reason to merge, they're related but separate concepts. Christopher (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Short article, easily merged into Pareidolia. ClickerClock (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Isn't there a duplicate articles page for stuff like this? Bicycle^wheel 15:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

RW:DUP, no-one uses it though. Christopher (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

There are two new sections there under a week old. Bicycle^wheel 15:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, it isn't used as much though and seems to take a lot longer. Christopher (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Bullshit | Result: Delete

Template:Bullshit (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. We don't even use this. Redundant as most of our articles are about bullshit. ClickerClock (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Delete as unnecessary. Contractor (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Totally unnecessary, I'll subst the few transclusions there are. Christopher (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Support this. Only used on user/talk pages anyway.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The O’Reilly Factor | Result: Merge

The O’Reilly Factor (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. No citations, all anger. FuzzyCatPotato of the Shimmery Beagles (talk/stalk) 16:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

   In case people have missed it, there's already an article on Bill O'Reilly. FuzzyCatPotato of the All-natural Nuclear reactors (talk/stalk) 15:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

2. ~ FluffyRatTomato ^t 12:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Pretty obviously, it's based on watching the show. Missional, no substantive reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
2. No one appears to be disputing missionality, if it's missional it's good enough to stay. Christopher (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
3. If there are no citations, then tag the article with {{Sources needed}}. The article also seems not the best formatted, but outside of those two complaints, I see little reason to delete the article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
4. Keep, but with a major overhaul and a lot of sources. If you really need someone to do the overhaul, I'll do it. Parrrley 02:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. It's short enough that it could be summarized and put in a section on the Bill O'Reilly page. While the person and the work are tangentially different topics, there's little enough information on the work to be a footnote. a smol fairy foxgirl (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
2. I'm OK with a merge - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Also a valid option if the subject overlap enough. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
4. Once the odd format is cleaned up and sources are added it would fit as a section in Bill's page. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
5. Merge what isn't just unfunny hate (BFANJS) into the Bill O'Reilly page. Note to whoever merges: anything extraordinary that is also unsourced hangs by a slender thread, indeed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
6. ClickerClock (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Goat

I suppose there is overlap between Bill O'Reilly and The O'Reilly Factor, though I think the latter can be more focused on the show itself while Bill O'Reilly can be about O'Reilly's other public appearances, but eh. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nicholas Stix | Result: Deleted

Nicholas Stix (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Terribly sourced BLP, delete along with "Moxie14"'s other articles. Christopher (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Link to his Blogspot blog is dead. Again, we don't do 'notability' but on the other hand he's just another minor racist ex-blogger with no hint of impact. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Dead blog. I feel as we should document the racists who do worse damage. ClickerClock (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
4. We document every nutty idea. Not every nut. Spud (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
5. -⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• It's missional, but yeah, could do with sourcing ... is there any way to save this? (This is me not raising my hand to do so myself. But if you search "Nicholas Stix" you will find ample evidence of the plausibility of the contents and stance of this article, and that he's an eminently articleworthy subject in principle.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Celibacy in Buddhism | Result: Moved to Sexual abuse in Buddhism

Celibacy in Buddhism (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge/redirect

1. Most of this article is about sexual abuse so Sexual abuse in Buddhism would be a more accurate replacement, to go with Child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. These first 3 paragraphs about celibacy, would do better on the celibacy page.^{— Unsigned, by: X-Factor / talk / contribs}

   X factor couldn't do it themselves due to being in the vandal bin, this is the message contained in the afd template. Christopher (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

2. Rename as suggested and move the non-fitting bits to the main Celibacy article Hertzy (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Just move it, there's no need for this bureaucratic process. Bicycle^wheel 15:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
4. I've moved it to Sexual abuse in Buddhism. The intro now needs to be rewritten and some of the content should be moved to the celiabcy page. Spud (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Back-seat drivers | Result: Delete

Category:Back-seat drivers (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Pointless, basically a list of people we don't like who used to be more important than they are now. Christopher (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
2. ClickerClock (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Vorarchivist (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Pointless is right. Spud (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

JayMan | Result: Delete

JayMan (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Terribly sourced BLP, delete along with "Moxie14"'s other articles. Christopher (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Not inclined to keep. Missional, but this is not really good - David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
3. A fellow with a Twitter account and a Wordpress blog. No, we don't do 'notability', but I think we need more proof of impact than that. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Yeah. He's nobody. Spud (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Dylan Vega | Result: Delete

Dylan Vega (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Missionality? Seems to be a puff piece, possibly self-authored. Also bad formatting. Bongolian (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Yep. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Who cares? Christopher (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Causalation | Result: Redirect to Correlation does not imply causation

Causalation (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge/redirect

1. This is basically a repeat of the content on Correlation does not imply causation. Content can be easily merged. ClickerClock (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

   I moved your vote to merge/redirect seeing as that's clearly what you support doing, it automatically puts your vote in delete. Christopher (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

2. I have this on my watchlist as a reminder to merge this, never got round to it. Christopher (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Per all. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
4. They seem to know what they're talking about. Spud (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Usermessage Trolling | Result: Delete

Template:Usermessage Trolling (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This is an unfunny prank template and I think there is a sizeable amount of people who find it annoying and unwelcome rather than funny. Even if you're not fooled, it's hard to ignore the template and at least have a few seconds of "did I really have it?", which isn't very productive and goes a bit against the purpose of such notifications in the first place. While overall only annoying at worst, I think this kind of stuff should be removed from the wiki, and it should've been deleted a long time ago. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
2. I can't pass the catchpa here at work, so every time I get hit by this it forces me to engage in creative relogging. Hipocrite (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   Then check where the link sends you before clicking on it, it's possible on nearly all computers. Christopher (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   Not on mobile though in some cases. So, more the reason to delete it. And besides, I don't blame Hipocrite. I don't think he's at fault and I can feel the pain of logging out especially if you have trouble with catchpa. Unless this thing gets a complete color change or even a text change, people that can't hover over the link have no clue if it's real or not unless they exit the page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   I can on mobile, you can still tell the difference through the colour of the links though (CBF's one is more convincing because it's the right colour). Christopher (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   I don't quite understand how the cost-benefit analysis of this template works - we should keep it because it's my fault for not checking every time I get a "new message" indicator that it's actually a new message and not a fuckwit trying to prank me? It's just a prank, bro, right? Hipocrite (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   No one has yet argued that we should keep it. The fact that I don't think you have a good reason for wanting to delete this template doesn't mean I oppose deleting it. Christopher (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   Why not goat?—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 04:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

   It doesn't really matter either way because there are no transclusions of the template, more goat is always needed though. Christopher (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

   I mean, there have been attempts to make it more obvious that it's fake, but if you look at the history, it's just edit warring by Arisboch. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

3. Not because I oppose people doing this (I don't particularly care either way) but because there are no uses of this template. If people care that much about having this rather bad joke on their page they can copy paste it off CBF's userpage. Christopher (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   Not fair to hide redirs - [12] Hipocrite (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

   There are still no transclusions, which I consider to be an unused template, the relevant special page agrees. Christopher (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• It's quite old so I don't know if it'll still work but Nx made a script to hide these. Christopher (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  Doesn't work for me. Christopher (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Fun:Evil | Result: Delete by a wafer thin majority

Fun:Evil (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. It isn't funny. Christopher (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
2. ^t 07:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Bah. Considering the near-endless potential inherent to a fun article on Evil, our current shot is a sandy vagina wet towel, to say the least. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. *Rogal Dorn voice* I disagree. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Sorta funny if that's what you like, but keep because there's vast potential for some actual fun here. Bicycle^wheel 12:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Room 202 | Result: moved to Fun:Room 202

RationalWiki:Room 202 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. What's the point of this? Christopher (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
2. ^t 09:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
3. What? Bicycle^wheel 13:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. It's fun. Bongolian (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
2. We need a RationalWiki:History page where we can file away these old beasts, maybe as subpages (eg, RationalWiki:History/Room 202). FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 05:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Move to funspace. I smirked at it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
4. Keep, funspace or no - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
5. ClickerClock (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

La Familia Michoacana | Result: Keep by a very narrow margin

La Familia Michoacana (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not the most missional article, also hard to expand stub. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Stubbiness (except in extreme cases such as créationnisme) isn't a reason for deletion, I don't think it's missional though. Christopher (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Maybe it's the nitrogen bubbles in my brain, but I find this to be perfectly missional. The war on drugs? An armed Christian cult waging terroristic war on the populace? Political plays from all sides? Mixed media coverage? 'Mexican Brute' scaremongering, right along Trump's border? What's not to like? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
2. What on Earth was I thinking when I voted delete? Christopher (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. I don't think its being short is a valid reason to delete the article since it seems long enough to me. Missionality, you can argue, though. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 08:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Agreed. Aside from the cult part (and even that's a stretch) there's not much that's missional. But as LGM said, brevity is not a reason for deletion. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

David Galloway | Result: Merged

David Galloway (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with Centre for Intelligent Design.-【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. So take it to the duplicate articles page. I know it's slower, but what's the rush? Bicycle^wheel 12:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
2. ClickerClock 11:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Should certainly not be deleted, but should certainly be merged. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Entry point | Result: Delete

Category:Entry point (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Many are probably not entry points anymore, (there's also Category:Entry points which is a redirect to this category but contains articles). Christopher (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
2. ~ FluffyRatTomato ^t 10:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Much like our pointless Priority system — this seems like an 'entry point' for editor overhead, if nothing else. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Since we don't have server access, this is how I tried to determine an "entry point": [1] Modify the following URL to get a depersonalized Google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=search%20terms&pws=0 [2] If the RatWiki article is near the top for a search term, I'd call it an "entry point". That said, the two categories should probably be merged. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 16:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

   What does the "&pws=0" bit do? Christopher (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

   Depersonalizes the search. FuzzyCatPotato of the Mundane Bass guitars (talk/stalk) 01:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

   I wouldn't class everything that's near the top as an entry point, if we're the top result for "I AM A DONALD TRUMP AND 2 + 2 = 5 I ALSO LIKE MARSHMALLOWES AND HAPPINESS AND CHEESEBURGERS" (we're not, I checked) would you class it as an entry point? I doubt many people would Google that. Christopher (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

   For an actual example An archive for your userpage at archive.is is the top result for this but I wouldn't put your userpage in entry point because of it. Christopher (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Shouldn't we filter out those that aren't entry points anymore and then find out if the category needs deletion or not? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is only someone with server access can tell whether or not something is still an entry point. Tmtoulouse is AWOL and David Gerard (who I believe is the only other person with server access?) isn't nearly active enough to police every removal or addition of the category. Christopher (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Unremitting horror | Result: Delete

Category:Unremitting horror (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. We have the Holocaust and ISIS in the same category as these images, the Daily Heil, Jesusland and Brexit? And it's a sub category of comedy. I removed it from the comedy cat and the images have been removed, still stupid though. Christopher (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Pointless indeed.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 15:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
3. In the trashcan it goes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• Even if it ends up being kept (which I think is incredibly unlikely), I'll start removing the stupid ones (websites, for instance, even if disgusting rarely actually harm anyone). Christopher (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 German federal elections | Result: Behalten (keep)

2017 German federal elections (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. non-missional and professional German Comics struggle to derive fun from this election. Benaresh (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. I favour a broader view of this wiki's mission: whatever it is, it better have snark. ^{— Unsigned, by: Several ingredients / talk / contribs}
2. We have articles on other elections, so why not this? If it ends up not getting updated much we can ditch it, but for now, keep. Bicycle^wheel 14:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Bicycle Wheel is right, as usual. Spud (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

   Spud owes me ten thousand dollars. Bicycle^wheel 12:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   I said "as usual". I didn't say "as always". Nice try! Spud (talk)

4. Das ist verrückt! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
5. Behalten, für alle anderen. Christopher (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Fun:Eurovision Song Contest | Result: Keep, move to mainspace when good enough

Fun:Eurovision Song Contest (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

#Not funny, previously been afd'd but survived (despite most of the votes being for delete). Christopher (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

1. ^t 07:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep and move back to mainspace, actually - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

   Which part of our mission statement does this fall under? There's the homophobia but I don't think that's enough on its own. Christopher (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

   Like... Most of them? Euroskepticism, views on government spending, media freedom under authoritarian regimes, LGBT rights, national propaganda strategies, voter fraud, free speech (politically charged lyrics), which backwater country can produce the best tapdancing otherkin violinist, etc? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

2. Delete? Heck — I'm protest listening to e-type until the very moment this article is rehabilitated back into mainspace, never mind kept. Please hurry voting "keep" Oh God I can't take much more of this Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Mainspace. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
4. It's worth keeping just because Conchita Wurst annoys Putin. Bongolian (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
5. Per me being wrong and Percy being right. Christopher (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Mind giving the link for the previous AFD entry? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This was before it was moved to funspace, looking through the goat votes there were more keeps than I thought but the consensus appeared to be delete. Christopher (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, even the "keep" votes don't sound very convinced. They all say "let's wait and the article is bad at the moment" and we gave it well over a year to improve. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Steve Hoffman | Result: Deleted

Steve Hoffman (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This article asserts that Steve Hoffman's webpage promotes woo, but the RW page itself does nothing to support this, and is otherwise non-missional. Bongolian (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Per Bongolian. The current article contains nothing that is relevant other than the assertion that he does something woo-related.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Either add something mission-worthy or nuke the page. Spud (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
4. Would someone do the honors? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Fun:The RationalWiki Silly Person's Society | Result: Keep

Fun:The RationalWiki Silly Person's Society (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not funny ~ FluffyRatTomato ^t 10:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Just for shiggles. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Historical dumbness in the space for such, no reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Christopher (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Just move it to RationalWiki-space (same for any other old "political" "parties") and leave a redirect. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 13:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• As inane as the rest of it was, do I detect a portion of historical significance? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Andersen | Result: Delete

Sarah Andersen (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Nothing to do with Andersen herself; if this article was per weight it should have, it'd be one passing line in an article on recaptioning. As is, this is an article in her name that only does her discredit because of not noteworthy idiots. In the meantime, this article should not exist at the subject's name. Our copies of the cartoons are already being used by alt-righters as a handy source of them. This article strikes me as ill-conceived and really not in the spirit of our BLP guidelines - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Per what David said, also the funpage doesn't make much sense without the mainspace page so that'll have to go if we delete this. Christopher (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

   And the recaptioned images - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. The article hopes to show people that Andersen isn't Nazi. The current Google search for her name returns no other articles about Nazi appropriation of her work in the top 50. The idea is that: [1] Nazis who view the Nazi cartoons won't be affected (they're already Nazis), but [2] Non-Nazis who view the cartoons might question its authenticity, search for Andersen, find out that it's Nazi appropriation of what's consider an "innocent" cartoon, and (2A) be pissed at Nazis and (2B) discover RatWiki. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

   Then it should not be at the title "Sarah Andersen". Look, if you really want to keep doing this sort of thing, start a blog. This really does clash badly with what the RW BLP rules are for. Start an article on recaptioning, if there's a convincing one to be written. But this absolutely shouldn't be at the victim's name - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

   Would renaming it to "Adulthood is a Myth" work? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

   Make a new article about recaptioning, I'd suggest - David Gerard (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• I don't agree with the argument that we should delete the article because we potentially help some assholes from the "alt-right" to desecrate the comic. I agree with FuzzyCatPotato: we need to inform them that they're the ones that screw around with the strips and they may give a false impression on Andersen for those less informed and it might be a bigger problem for Andersen if we don't attempt to show the alterations. And in order to show what the "alt-right" has done, it is necessary to show the images. I don't see how our policy on living people applies here since we're not making a statement on Andersen, just documenting that some "alt-right" assholes think it's funny to change the comic to suit their viewpoints, just as how other "alt-right" assholes changed Ben Garrison's comics around. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  That being said, the current article needs a lot more work (it's just a comic dump lacking ratwikification at this point — I mean, atleast set up a gallery on the page or smth). Also, David's suggestion for a centralized stand-alone article on recaptioning — which could serve to absorb smaller articles, like the Sarah Andersen one — could potentially be good idea. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've added recaptioning to the to-do list - David Gerard (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Fun:Public school | Result: Delete

Fun:Public school (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. I always thought that funspace articles had to be funny but maybe that's just me. Christopher (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
2. 😐 --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
3. It's meant to be a parody of a Conservapedia article. A Conservapedia article from way back in the day when the wiki was almost entirely written by Andy Schlafly's homeschoolers, before the site got really weird and then got boring. Basically, it's a joke that nobody's going to get anymore. Spud (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
4. --Godonaldgo1 (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:We're on a mission from Ceiling Cat | Result: Keep

Category:We're on a mission from Ceiling Cat (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not funny. This "category" only contains one article, and that article is not funny. ~ FluffyRatTomato ^t 12:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Blasphemy! This is the most important category on the wiki, next you'll be trying to delete the holy Goat. Christopher (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

   Is this some other tired in-joke I'm not aware of? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

2. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Rework it. Barrel! (Combo!) 16:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Twitterers | Result: Deleted

RationalWiki:Twitterers (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. What's the point? Christopher (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

   Self-promotion, you twit ;) --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

2. ~ FluffyRatTomato ^t 09:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
3. The type of list article which just adds editorial overhead to maintain, fast grows to ridiculous proportions if popular, and conversely falls out of date quickly if not continually managed. I would support simply mothballing the page instead of deleting if there's a historical value to the article, however. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
4. --JorisEnter (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Essay:If I CALL my OPPONENTS smug I'm automatically RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!! | Result: Moved to the Forum space

Essay:If I CALL my OPPONENTS smug I'm automatically RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!! (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This is a ridiculous abuse of the essay space. This is clearly not an essay and should be moved to the forum instead. Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

   If you want it moved to forumspace you should probably change your vote to merge/redirect not delete. Christopher (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Just move it to the forum namespace and merge the talk page content. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Move to the forum. Christopher (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Can we at least remove the caps and excessive exclamation marks? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That was courtesy of User:Christopher moving this essay to mock the creator. The original title was fine for a forumspace name. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

WTF, Christopher? C'mon, if you think the article has problems, just let the page speak for itself. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Fun:Division | Result: Delete

Fun:Division (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not funny. Christopher (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
2. ~ FluffyRatTomato ^t 12:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Arithmetic is witchcraft. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 13:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
4. Another turd left over from the bad old days. Spud (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat

If we're going to delete those articles, should we also delete Category:Stuff too hard for Ed Poor? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.~ FluffyRatTomato ^t 12:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Fun:Addition | Result: Delete

Fun:Addition (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Just isn't funny. Christopher (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
2. ~ FluffyRatTomato ^t 12:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Arabic numerals are the work of the devil. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 13:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
4. A relic from our Conservapedia-baiting past. How many of our visitors even know who Ed Poor is anymore? Spud (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat

This article screams for a joke about gifts and that Republicans don't like altruism including "handouts" to the needy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

David Peters | Result: Suppressed

David Peters (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This page has been a stub since 2012. Only one page (Dinosaur) links here. And the living person themself has written a rebuttal that's longer than the page itself on the page. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 13:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
2. No sources so it could be completely made up. Per Fuzzy. Christopher (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
3. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
4. Problematic article and probably harmful article that can possibly damage the reputation of Peters, evidenced by its talk page. Not what we want. Any further attempts should have more care taken to it per policy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• It's been nuked. Could someone who isn't a complete nerf herder (read: like myself) go ahead and do the archiving? I'm on my phone, honest! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Playing the Race Card | Result: ?Merge With Forumbiodiversity

Playing the Race Card (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

#I know notability is stupid and all that, but are they notable? The only citations are links to the website itself. Christopher (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep

I would say that the phrase is not restricted to the websites cited in the article. If the stub is widened and generalized it can stand alone by itself. --Lurio (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. With the Forumbiodiversity article. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Agree: merge. It's worth a mention on the FBD page at least. Bongolian (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Unless it has its own set of information that helps it distinguish itself from Forumbiodiversity, then it's pretty tied to Forumbiodiversity, and it works fine to have it be a section in that article. In the future, if it gets a major expansion, then it's worth looking at it again. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
4. The above people seem to know what they're talking about.Spud (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
5. Keep forgetting to change my vote (it automatically puts your vote in delete). Christopher (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Fun:This be a red link, arr!! | Result: SNOWdelete

Fun:This be a red link, arr!! (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not funny. (Redlink now redirects to Help:Red links instead of the "Fun" page.) ~ FluffyRatTomato ^t 10:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
2. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 13:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
3. is this really worth discussing? Nuke it! Spud (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
4. Christopher (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
5. Seconding SNOWDelete Hertzy (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
6. Nuke from orbit.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Birther | Result: Redirect to Obama citizenship denial

Birther (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with Obama citizenship denial. Christopher (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
2. There is a tremendous amount of overlap between the two. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
3. This should've been marked as a Duplicate, not for Deletion. That being said — do not delete, but do merge with Obama citizenship denial. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

   What's the point of duplicate article nomination if we already have a "Merge/redirect" option in afd? Christopher (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

   It's not just a local rule. On Wikis generally, there's a functional difference between (1) Discussing if there's overlapping content in two separate articles, fully or in part, neither of which are being considered for deletion, and (2) Arguing that the entirety of some article ought to be deleted from the site, with the ability to vote "Merge/redirect" meaning "Yes, we should delete the article, but certain content in it should perhaps appear elsewhere on the site". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

4. Just do the merge - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Per Christopher. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
6. yupStickySock (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
7. Merging's not going to be easy, but looks like the best thing to do here. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Independent Institute | Result: Keep

Independent Institute (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Five year-old stub.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 05:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Clearly missional, and informative, if not at length. Being short is not a reason for deletion - David Gerard (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
2. In some cases I think an article being really short is a reason for deletion. However, I see no reason to delete this. It's clearly missional. Christopher (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Short articles aren't bad. Unlike other stubs I supported to delete (such as créationnisme, which has only one sentence), this one has enough content to qualify as an article. At this point, expansion is much preferred to deletion. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Expand, don't remove. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Steven Goldberg | Result: Keep

Steven Goldberg (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. 100-word stub by long-gone user; hasn't been touched in a year. Merge the book titles to patriarchy. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
2. —CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 05:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Nothing of any value. Christopher (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
4. -ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. I don't see why deleting it is the best choice. There's Goldberg's official site, where he summarizes his theory. We can expand the page based on it. And I am not long gone. - Student (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

   If the page is deleted, don't worry, it can always be restored. But next time, there has to be more effort even for a stub. However, if there is an expansion before the consensus is reached, then we don't have to delete the page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

   If we keep it, I can write an outline of his theories. It was my intention when I first created this page, but I didn't have much time and I ended up forgetting about that. - Student (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

   Ok. I have adjusted some issues in the article and added some more content to it. Does it still have to be deleted? - Student (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

   Better now! I think we can hold off deleting this. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

2. Page is better. Switching from delete to keep. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
3. -RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Keep in present condition - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Small but useful article.. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Fun:List of Illuminati plots | Result: Deleted

Fun:List of Illuminati plots (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. It just isn't funny. Christopher (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Agreed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Shit sucks.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 20:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
4. From orbit. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Easier to just say everything at this point. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• i fixxded it Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk)

Alger Hiss | Result: Keep

Alger Hiss (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. A poorly written and poorly sourced page that's hard to read on a subject that few other pages link to. At best, the good bits can go to Joseph McCarthy. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
2. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 07:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep

See the main article on this topic: Missional fallacy

1. . Periodically, they still carry on about this fellow in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. There's something worth admiring about that kind of obscure historical memory in this day and age. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 00:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

   True -- but our article isn't a good account of events. And given that we're not an encyclopedia, it might be impossible to change that. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

2. Keep - missional and no reason to delete - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Keep, on condition of re-write. I'm not sure what the "gay-bahing lunacy" part is about. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Keep. Missional enough. Bongolian (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Rewrite comes first, not delete. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. I dunno. Is it missional? Maybe? RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
2. It's not clear to me that the article in question is unmissional, nor poorly written (admittedly at a glance). Seeing as how it's currently 4AM where I live — could anything be done to inform me better, which wouldn't involve me actually having to read through the whole article myself? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri | Result: Deleted

Proxima Centauri (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. How is this missional? Christopher (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Created by User:Proxima Centauri, who was our worst writer until Plutoniumboss came along. Delete with fire - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Wow, this is like me creating an article on Super Mario or something. Silly, but if the mob wants to preserve it and change it to userspace, then I'm okay with that too. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Userfy. Proxima is a terrible writer, so let's dump her crap on her own doorstep. Bicycle^wheel 11:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
2. With some sort of UFOlogy article, to talk about how far aliens might have to travel to visit earth, and difficulties associated with that. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Créationnisme | Result: Deleted

Créationnisme (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. The entire contents of this article translates as "Creationism is the belief that God created the universe through divine intervention." Whilst not every stub should be deleted I don't think this is very informative Christopher (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
2. French or not, it's just one sentence. Ecraser. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Je pense que nous avons RationalWiki français, n'est-ce pas? Pourquoi nous devons avoir cet article? Oui, je parle un peu de français. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

   Mais je ne parle pas bien, evidemment. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

   No, we do not have a separate French RationalWiki. The only language that gets its own site is Russian. This here RationalWiki is currently the only one for English and every other language. There are other French articles here, some of which are quite good. Spud (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

4. Delete. If there was interest by any Francophones, it could have been expanded by now. Bongolian (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Less than a line, so this can probably go.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Expandez! 85.234.65.51 (talk) (Roue de bicyclette) 11:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC) (you'll never believe this, but my captcha for this is "roast beef"!)

   In an ideal world I'd agree but how many active editors actually speak French? Christopher (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

2. Keep it, it's missional!(troll face)—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 05:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Acanthostega gunnari | Result: Merged

Acanthostega gunnari (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. Unless a suitable page for merging can be suggested, I think this could be expanded instead using information from the external links. Bongolian (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with a suitable article.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 06:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

   Surely you need to be suggesting one - David Gerard (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

   List of transitional forms, perhaps? Bicycle^wheel 13:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Textbook case of "merge what can be kept and throw out the rest". Merge into List of transitional forms. We are not an encyclopedia. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Yes, that's the right thing to do. Spud (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
4. Merge into List of transitional forms. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
5. Same as everyone else. Christopher (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Might fit nicely as an example organism in Transitional fossil. FYI, it's already listed in List of transitional forms. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki:BoN | Result: Merged

RationalWiki:BoN (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge/redirect

Doesn't need its own page, redirect to RW:DYS#B. Christopher (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

so just do it instead of having a whole process about it. It's a project page, not mainspace, and you're not deleting anything. Bicycle^wheel 11:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/RationalWiki talk:Articles for deletion/RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Goat | Result: Goat

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/RationalWiki talk:Articles for deletion/RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Goat (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This is getting too meta. Christopher (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. I say we keep this shitshow rolling! (imagine this in a sarcastic tone) The living oxymoron (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
2. *sneaks off to play Morrowind* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
3. RBP is clearly an N'wah Onychoprion (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki talk:Articles for deletion/RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Goat | Result: Goat

RationalWiki talk:Articles for deletion/RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Goat (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. The entire content is just the Reverend bleating, adds nothing of value to the wiki. Christopher (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

1. [13]—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 18:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. Goat. -- Goat (Bleat)

   I agree with this sentiment (also, you didn't timestamp your "vote") Christopher (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

   Baaaah. :( -- Goat (Bleat) 02:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Goat | Result: Goat

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Goat (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Christopher (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Yeah, deleting good ol' goat is going too far, a topic on moving it the funspace is a better discussion though.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 16:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
3. I second this. The living oxymoron (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
4. function deleteGoat(f) { deleteGoat(f+1); } --Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. I'm starting to regret nominating RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Goat for deletion, should I or should I not?

Christopher (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Goat | Result: For goat's sake no!

Goat (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. How is this to do with "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement; Documenting the full range of crank ideas; Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism; Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media."? RationalPerson (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. The goat is our sacred cow! Spud (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Even us hardasses have to have a bit of humour. The living oxymoron (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
3. For the love of goat no! Christopher (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Oh for goat's sake...--JorisEnter (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Goat goat goat goat, goat? Goat. Meh (You) 14:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
6. We must gave goat. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
7. Love the goat. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. I do agree that the article isn't missional. This page should be moved to the funspace considering goat is basically a meme on RationalWiki.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 15:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

   HERESY Christopher (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. I vote for the goat. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

   Your vote is admirable.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 15:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Patriarch | Result: Redirect to patriarchy

Patriarch (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Nobody will come to RationalWiki for the definition of Patriarch. Speedy delete, no need to merge. FuzzyCatPotato of the On edge Angels (talk/stalk) 19:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

   I presume you'd want a redirect to patriarchy? In which case I thought it should still go in Merge/Redirect? (Or is that just if you think there's anything of value to merge?) Christopher (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge with patriarchy. Christopher (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Aside from a very similar terminology to "patriarch", this article doesn't seem very missional. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Merge anything of supposed value into patriarchy, blank the rest and turn patriarch into a redirect to patriarchy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Merge per above - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
5. SNOW merge to Patriarchy. 85.234.65.51 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC) (Sophie)

   What does SNOW mean? This? Christopher (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

   Yes! Spud (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

6. —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 14:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
7. It's all been said. Spud (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Fun:Psychoceramic | Result: Delete

Fun:Psychoceramic (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Stub since 2009, contains one joke. Christopher (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Utterly pointless. Spud (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Per all. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Looks like the article was created in order to crack the joke. No. Bicycle^wheel 13:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Advertising Standards Authority | Result: nom withdrawn

Advertising Standards Authority (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

#Could possibly be notable but probably not, a stub. Christopher (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. We don't have "notability", we have "missionality", and the ASA turns out to be a fantastically effective tool for skeptics, particularly in the UK - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

   Sorry, I meant missionality. But I think that if it just remains a stub there isn't really much point, I would delete it and put it on the to do list. Christopher (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

   ... it looks useful and informative to me - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

2. Before rallying the mob to delete, try rallying it to expand. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Per Reverend Black Percy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Per me being an idiot and wanting to nominate every stub I come across for deletion. Christopher (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Fun:Goddammit | Result: Delete

Fun:Goddammit (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Stub for nearly a decade, put it out of its misery Christopher (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
2. —チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 14:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Could've been much funnier, but as it stands, I have a straight face. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Waste of space. Spud (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Yet another unfunny fun page. Bicycle^wheel 13:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Florentin Smarandache | Result: Deleted

Florentin Smarandache (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. It's a hopelessly tiny stub and unclear. DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 05:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Unclear missionality. Very little to nothing is lost if it's deleted. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. I don't even know if this is even missional. But assuming it is, it seems to be a long enough article, though with little expansion potential. The worst part about this article is that is filled with jargon (e.g. "vixra", "in arxiv is GM", "a lateral thinker in a quite vertical series of publications" (wtf), "neutroscophy", "math is quite vertical" (again, wtf!?). Ironic that this article itself "confuses people with mathematical verbiage and a long list of nonsensical validity". I would support a rewrite of this mess more than a deletion though. This article may have some use per "case study" section, but as it stands, I think it only barely has a reason to be on this site. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
2. I don't understand the jargon either. I'm also rather concerned that the page is only in the Living people category and not in any others. That makes me wonder if its really missional. I'm really left wondering why I should care. It seems that the implication of the page is that Florentin Smarandache is a pseudo-mathematician. On the basis of the page, however, I can't see what real harm he could do or why anybody should pay any attention to him. Spud (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternative 3 | Result: Deleted

Alternative 3 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Hopelessly tiny stub. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Been a stub for three years.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 01:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Put it out of its misery. Spud (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
4. Same as above. Christopher (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
5. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Osteopathic medicine | Result: Merge

Osteopathic medicine (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Keep

1. Osteopathic medicine (OM) is not the same as osteopathy (O). That would be the same as telling that alchemy is the same as chemistry or that alienism is the same as psychology (with the caveat that OM is still influenced by O in a way that doesn't apply to the other examples, and that OM contains a deal of crankery not present in those two). Additionally, one must notice that O and OM are practiced in different parts of the world; it's the O article that's going to have to be changed to reflect these facts (that, and it doesn't seem to have enough dept). Faunas (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

   Perhaps the new article could represent this historical to modern trend, and explain both in depth? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

   Too unwieldy. If that were to happen, I see two different things mixed up with one another. It would be better if we were to have two separate articles and one mention another. Faunas (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

   Also, Faunas, you have not made a very good case within the Osteopathic medicine article for keeping it separate from Osteopathy. On the one hand you say that OM has ditched the pseudoscience of osteopathy, but on the other you cite a study that it's no different than placebo and quote Salzberg saying that it's pseudoscience ("'extra' training in pseudoscientific practices"). I believe though that that quote is out of context and it's not exactly what he says. Bongolian (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

   I said that the thing that distinguishes osteopathic medicine from "regular" medicine and has in common with the old osteopathy, i.e. OMM, is pseudoscience, not the whole of osteopathic medicine, which aside from OMM is largely indistinguishible from "regular" medicine. ^{— Unsigned, by: Faunas / talk / contribs}

   Isn't the difference between the two whether or not the person is also an MD? Bongolian (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Osteopathic medicine is synonymous with the existing page osteopathy. Osteopathic medicine should be merged into Osteopathy. Bongolian (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
2. Clear-cut case for merging. Let's make this into ONE article and aim for Gold quality in its future. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
3. Merge - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
4. We have Anthroposophy, and Anthroposophical medicine redirects to there. This appears to be a similar case, so let's be consistent. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
5. -(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
6. You convinced me. My arguments were getting more and more untennable. Faunas (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Pikaia gracilens | Result: Merge

Pikaia gracilens (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge into list of transitional fossils. Delete what can't be merged. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

   I agree, my vote was for delete only because I don't know how to create an AfD discussion without voting for delete, will change now. Christopher (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

   Neat! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

2. We're not an encyclopedia. Christopher (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Per above and comments on linking to transitional fossils below. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
4. It's the only option. Spud (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
5. As per discussion below, I'm changing my vote. Hertzy (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• What about the couple of other stubs linked from List of transitional fossils? If this passes, I move we snow-delete the lot of them. Hertzy (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  The article List of transitional fossils will always be missional, in my opinion. We need to meet the Creationist claim that we can't provide a list of transitional fossils — we can, and do. What we don't need is stand-alone articles on various species identified by paleontology. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  So we're in agreement, then, that the transitional fossil stubs should be deleted. I wasn't talking about the decent-length articles or the list itself. Hertzy (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  We're in agreement assuming this is what you mean: merging all of the transitional fossil stubs into the List of transitional fossils article (where possible). If so, then yes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  Fair enough, as long as it's not me stuck with the job of doing the merging.Hertzy (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  Also, I think that sentiment warrants moving your own vote above from "Delete" to "Merge". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  Some have OK articles, but yeah, this shouldn't need AFD - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Misogynoir | Result: Delete

Misogynoir (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Non notable stub. Christopher (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Agree. Bongolian (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
3. I am only amazed that it's taken nearly two years for someone to nominate this for deletion. (I didn't do that back in August 2015 because I didn't want to be known as the bloke who just nominated everything for deletion.) Spud (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
   1. Not much wrong with that, as long as you're doing it in the wiki's best interest. For a couple of years there were only three people interested in deletion discussions (back when it took three unopposed admins to delete an article). Nobody else cared. Bicycle^wheel 13:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
4. It's now a sentence in Intersectionality, where it can be expanded upon by those who so wish. Bicycle^wheel 13:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Esther Vilar | Result: No consensus

Esther Vilar (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Appears to be living person, this article is a stub and has been for months, creator of article is a pedophile advocate (srsly) CorruptUser (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   I don't find that last part very relevant. Applesauce is too but is this relevant at all to the election? Like it or not, paedophilia advocacy is huge in the UK right now.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 02:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. It just needs expansion.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 02:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Better to have a short article with enough content rather than no article. I think it can have an expansion, and just because it doesn't have an expansion in a while doesn't mean it should be deleted. LEFTYGREENMARIO 01:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Goat

It's hard to see what the point of the current stub is. Unless it's expanded significantly I suggest deleting & just mentioning her briefly in the antifeminism article. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Polite society | Result: Politely deleted

Polite society (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Non missional, written entirely by on user except a couple of spelling corrections. I was almost tempted to speedy delete but it's been around for a while. Christopher (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Not a clue why this should be missional. Might fit under political correctness perhaps, but a few lines of text and two YouTube-videos (one of which has since been deleted) does not a page make.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Per both. I'm also confused if this is supposed to be a loaded term or not. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
4. Just awful! Spud (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Fun:Dawkinsical inerrancy | Result: Deleted

Fun:Dawkinsical inerrancy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. For the love of God, no The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 06:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
2. A stub since 2010, not much fun either. Bongolian (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Not fun. Spud (talk)
4. Ahahahaha no. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
5. Won't be missed. Bongolian (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Fun:Secular Priests' Association | Result: Deleted

Fun:Secular Priests' Association (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. For the love of God, no Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 06:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
2. I hope the creator of these articles has found a happy home on Uncyclopedia. Spud (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
3. What's the point of this? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
4. Won't be missed. Bongolian (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Fun:Whiskey Drinking Police Association | Result: Deleted

Fun:Whiskey Drinking Police Association (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. For the love of God, no FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 06:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
2. This wouldn't even be good enough for Uncyclopedia. Spud (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Errr, what? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome | Result: Redirected

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Very hard to expand. ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
2. The article was created on 20 July 2012 as two sentences (with references). The only things that have been added to it since then are a "See also", an external link and some templates. On 5 March 2017, the actual article is still just those two sentences. I think it's time to put it out of its misery. Spud (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
3. The article sucks. Kill it.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 17:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
4. I'm not opposed to short articles, but I believe this falls under hopelessly tiny stubs that have little effort poured into them. We're not supposed to fill in links for the sake of it if I recall correctly. The problem with this article that even for a stub, it conveys no meaningful information aside from two sentences of a summary on the work and it has remained as this for years. At this point, we should just wipe off clean on this one and hope for maybe a next attempt for somebody to actually pour more effort into this. In the meantime, a red link should convey more immediately that there is no information on this rather than lead our readers into a very empty article. LEFTYGREENMARIO 04:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. While currently a stub it's missional. Keep. Christopher (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

   I'm tired of seeing this damn argument over and over again that I created a page for it. See Fun:Missional fallacy.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

2. See the above. It could do with expansion, but it's definitely missional.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

   Just because a page is missional doesn't excuse it of being shit. See Fun:Missional fallacy.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Redirect to author, John C. Sanford - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

   Would be fine with it too if this happened instead. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   That does sound reasonable. Spud (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Agree. Bongolian (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Polymeric falcighol derivation | Result: eh

Polymeric falcighol derivation (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Already covered on the deep web page. This page as it is now is hardly missional; it just has quotes ffs.—CheeseburgerFace  (talk • stalk) 06:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

   A reminder that this still exists.—CheeseburgerFace  (talk • stalk) 18:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

2. -⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Does the job perfectly Deku-shrub (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

   So what? If you are worried about Google rank alone, then you should have put this in the redirect section. Perhaps instead of strawmanning, you discuss the actual points I made about the page being poor in quality.—CheeseburgerFace  (talk • stalk) 01:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   We have an article on this fallacy, argumentum ad Google ranking!—CheeseburgerFace  (talk • stalk) 02:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Would we lose the Google search ranking for that term if we just kept it as a redirect? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Did we ever care about google page rankings? 85.234.65.51 (talk) (Sophie) 12:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we really want people who google this shit to get pointed to another page which lends credence to this myth? Zionist Goy (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith | Result: Keep

Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Tiny stub that can't be expanded further. (Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

   I doubt that it couldn't be expanded further. What makes you say that? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. It's fairly missional and I think it can be expanded (even if it remained like it is now it's better than nothing). Christopher (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Clearly missional and an improvement over no article - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Missional stub =/= delete. Missional stub = expand and improve. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
4. Lots of room for expansion here. Any article about a book, assuming it's within our mission, has not-a-stub potential. 109.204.116.189 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC) (Sophie, still CBA logging in)
5. Per all. Expansion is much better than deletion. Even if this is a short article that can't be expanded, it still provides enough information to be a fairly useful resource. It even provides some sources, and I'm opposed to removing an article with that sort of content. Stubs aren't inherently bad; it's the articles that are low-effort stubs and contain no meaningful information that are the problem. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Academy awards | Result: Keep

Academy awards (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

#non missional Christopher (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. I wrote the article because the 2016 Oscars Controversy was on the to-do list. I thought having a whole article for a single Oscars controversy was a bit much myself, I do think it's missional and could sate some curiosity, even if it's not a super important topic. Hentropy (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Conspiracy theories are missional, and it has one. Bongolian (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
3. I nominated this for deletion a bit hastily. There's the sexism, racism and the conspiracy theories. It's missional. Christopher (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
4. Per all. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Goat

the real reason is why anyone gives a shit about the pomp and back slapping to see who can pretend to be someone else the best out of bunch of people who play dress up for living or why should anyone care what they have to say about anything. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Dustin hoffman, on the set of marathon man, told Laurence olivier that he had stayed awake for 72 hours to achieve the required look and emotional state for the scene. Olivier replied 'my dear boy, you should try acting.' AMassiveGay (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Essay:Age of consent abolitionist FAQ | Result: Deleted

Essay:Age of consent abolitionist FAQ (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. child rape apology; likely author is sock of banned User:Tisane (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   By the way, I think there is room for legitimate debate about the age of consent – exactly what age it should be set at (e.g. 15 or 16 or 17 or 18), whether there should be close-in-age exceptions (aka "Romeo and Juliet laws"), whether it should be the same for all sexual acts or apply different ages for different kind of sexual acts, etc, etc, etc. But abolishing it entirely would mean that it would be legal for a grown man to have sex with a five year old so long as the five year old "consents", which is just sick, and frankly I think it is not the kind of idea that should be given a platform. (Of course, if Nathan wants to advocate for those ideas on his own webshites, well I guess he has the legal right to do that in the jurisdiction in which he lives; but that doesn't mean anyone else should give him a platform to do so.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   Granted and this essay handles AoC poorly.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 04:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   Fair enough, I was about to object that this could be a legit viewpoint and I was almost reminded a hint (emphasis on hint) of the whole Alison Rapp harassment on essays that challenge firmly accepted social viewpoints. LEFTYGREENMARIO 04:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Poorly written essay by a sock to defend pedophilia.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 04:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
3. "Age of consent abolitionist" sounds nice, but it's just another way of saying that underage sex should be unlimited. Bad. Given the history of the user and the potential sock, it doesn't cast this essay in a very favorable light. LEFTYGREENMARIO 04:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
4. Only b/c it is a work by a sock of a banned user. I assume in good faith that this has been verified somehow. The controversial nature of the opinions put forth is not a good reason to delete a user essay in the opinion of this free speech extremist. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
5. Don't allow our critics to say we're apologists for child abuse.Spud (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Are we going to delete Essay:Abolish the close-in-age exception, written by the same author? LEFTYGREENMARIO 04:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably yes. It is advocating the same viewpoint just in a more attenuated form. Also, the stuff about Lena Dunham could be viewed as defamatory. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It unironically cites Bold and Determined. Enough of a reason to nuke.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 05:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a supremely low-quality citation, but does that exactly go against policy to have essays that have terrible citations? LEFTYGREENMARIO 05:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Rather than bothering with another AFD I just deleted it. If anyone strongly objects, we can restore it and we can have an AFD proper. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

List of peaceful revolutions | Result: Deleted

List of peaceful revolutions (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. It's not particularly missional. What is being implied is not true. See Category:Nonviolent revolutions Bongolian (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

   the first link on you category being Gandhi, I wonder if you knew that he ordered trains to be derailed? Not exactly peaceful ;) Moimeme 81 (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

2. I agree. Christopher (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Either demonstrably false, unfalsifiable (due to the various possible classifications of historical events under "revolution" and "peaceful") or tautological (if "revolution" is defined as a violent conflict).--ZooGuard (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
4. Off with its head! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. people refer to nonviolent revolutions usually thinking about the orange revolution in Ukraine but, civil disobedience was very common and definitely not what could be called peaceful. Some also bring to the table protest for women suffrage in the United States as being nonviolent, how many death do you need before it's violent. Some hippie/flower power website even put the Russian Revolution of 1917, they ended executing the Imperial family, not exactly peaceful or nonviolent... Moimeme 81 (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

we could add "successful" in there if you want but, that doesn't change the fact that if a revolution is peaceful It's not a revolution, it's reformism. Moimeme 81 (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If revolutions are violent by definition, then the page is a tautology and about as useful and witty as a "list of peaceful wars".--ZooGuard (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Same as a page on the amount of studies for the amount of double blind studies proving the effectiveness of homeopathy (there's none). But, yes I would give you that peaceful war is stupid why would you do that if it's impossible just why would you call reformism, revolution. The fact is, it's factually accurate whether you like it or not.Moimeme 81 (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest looking at circular reasoning. Though looking at the current content of that page, it may just result in greater confusion.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Jon Huntsman | Result: Deleted

Jon Huntsman (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. A tiny stub that doesn't appear to be missional Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
2. —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 05:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Non missional. Christopher (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
4. Just one of many politicians. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Special education | Result: dropped out

Special education (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. No relevance to rationalwiki's mission. Christopher (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
2. Delete - 0 of this is missional. There could conceivably be a missional article on the topic, but unless someone wants to write one this is the article we have and it's thoroughly deletable - David Gerard (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
3. As currently presented, it has no relevance to RationalWiki's mission at all. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
4. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 22:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
5. Yeah. I think a certain user might be happier starting Education Wiki. Spud (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. keep but redo. There's alot of woo and illogical poilicies in special education that can be addressed here Vorarchivist (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

   What's the point in keeping an article if it needs to be redone? There's no guarantee when it will be done if it's voted to stay.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 22:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Joshua Conner Moon | Result: no consensus possible, discussion crapped up

Joshua Conner Moon (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Appears to be a non-missional hit piece Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
2. I think it should be deleted on the grounds of "Don't feed the trolls" and this is all it is doing.--2d4chanfag (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

   A whole bunch of new accounts show up to swarm the AFD for an article about an internet troll. What a coincidence! αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 13:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

   @ FuzzyCat, NitroMan created the article and anti-racist activist also contributed to it. They aren't new accounts. I'm currently using an IP because I rarely use this site, but I was a former sysop here. The article should not be deleted. The person who sent the deletion request (owlman) is from Kiwi Farms and Joshua told him to try to remove it. What I find hilarious is that Josh claims to be a total freedom of speech activist (he defends defamation/hate speech), but if someone says something about him he doesn't like, he wants it deleted. He reminds me of Emil Kirkegaard.86.14.2.77 (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

   "Owlman is from Kiwifarms".--JorisEnter (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Internet drama + hitpiece + too many random accounts trying to keep this tells me that this should be deleted ASAP.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

   I find it strange you would help Joshua Conner Moon when he's been involved in cyber-stalking, defaming and non-stop harassing an ex-RW sysop here (going as far as stealing his photos and writing "pedophile" above his head at Kiwi Famrs); deleting Josh's page is exactly what he wants. Kiwi Farms are already bragging about this.86.14.2.77 (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

4. Why do we want to fool with this small gang of man-babies and all their stupid troll drama? --Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
5. Delete, also what's this stuff about Owlman being from Kiwifarms or something? I notice none of them have provided any evidence. Christopher (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

   Kiwi Farms posted they "own" a sysop account here and they infiltrated the site. I suspect (but cannot prove) its owlman based on the fact his false accusation anti-racist activist & Nitro man are the same person is copy & pasted from Kiwi Farms and Joshua said he was sending someone here to try to delete it. Also I wrote a more detailed statement here why I think the article should not be deleted.86.14.2.77 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

   Getting sysop isn't hard and is hardly an achievement. Sysops here are vandalism cleaners.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 22:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

6. The article is not handled maturely and is too quote-farmy for me. Because Moon is the site owner, it would be more suitable to have a page dedicated for the site not the owner. I recall RW having an article for the site, but it was deleted.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 22:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
7. Personally, I think that almost anyone covered on ED (who is not obviously relevant in the way that public figures like Richard Dawkins, Ken Ham, Alex Jones etc are) need not be covered here "as well". And not just in an effort to keep the editorial practices of ED as far away from RW as possible. Feel free to call moralistic fallacy on me here, but by and large, I reckon overlap in coverage of individuals between ED and RW ought to be made as minimal as possible, now and in the future. Moralistic fallacy again, but to me, our focus should really be on (bare with me here) science/movements/trends/parties/products/treatments/companies/religions/cults and all that prior to giving focus to individual people. And the individual people who we doubtless ought to cover — aside from public individuals/crank "celebrities" — should really be people who ED would have very little interest in covering (e.g. Roger Leir, John Hogue or Daniel Estulin). Like, actual fringe people — not famous, but certainly not involved in internet drama. I mean this in the sense that the Skeptic's Dictionary, or any given issue of Skeptic magazine, mention extremely few of the people mentioned on ED, and vice versa. This, to me, partially makes the difference between an actual skeptical resource and a digital high school "burn book". But maybe that's all just me. I'm not saying, in a practical sense, that an internet drama war couldn't be fought on RW as well as in the ordinary places elsewhere on the web. As evidenced by the stream of new accounts, BoN involvement and troll baiting, this is clearly possible. I'm just saying, let's fucking not. But these are just my two cents. The site doesn't speak for me, and I don't speak for the site. But obviously, RW could be less hypocritical than it has been allowed to be at times (read: in certain portions of mainspace). Let's consider actively moving away from that, even with baby steps. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

--JorisEnter (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. We should keep keep the part about Lolcow Wiki ecause its not wrong. --2d4chanfag (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
2. The article is not a 'hit piece', it is sourced to all of Joshua Conner Moon's own racist writings. This guy is notable cyber bully and Tump crackpot, and his website Kiwi Farms is well known on the web for its harassment and irrational positions on race and politics.. I understand Joshua wants the page deleted for personal reasons but there is no reason this website should give into his demands. The guy is a notable crank. Anti racist activist (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
3. Joshua Conner Moon in his own words "Muslims need a good genocide" [14]. This article exposing his racism and internet shenanigans is entirely accurate. The non-missional claim from Moon's friend Owlman is total BS. This is about as on mission as it gets. Nitro Man (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
4. It is good for people to have understanding of what is out on the internet, both good and bad, that way they can decide for themselves. Roo (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

   Well, that isn't a bad argument but I disagree that Moon or KF are notable enough to warrant an article. There isn't anything that is particularly missonal about either.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

   Not missional yet, I understand. Raging lunatics do not have everybody following them in the beginning. It starts slow, and gains steam over many years. Best to expose it early IMO. Like a warning label on L. Ron Hubbard's face, for example. Roo (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

5. It's missional, but obvious sock puppet/troll bait. I think it should be kept but protected at least until it's thoroughly revamped, e.g., as per Fuzzy. Bongolian (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
6. I cut the article to quotes and citations. I autoconfirm-protected it. In its current state it seems missional. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Clearly, this AFD attracts an unusually large number of IPs and brand new accounts. Is it just me, or does anyone else find this just a tiny bit suspicious?--JorisEnter (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The 86.14 BoN and likely many of the throwaways are being made by a prolific sockpuppeteer who has been socking for years on pretty much any wiki he's been on, including this site. He is one of the people quoted in that link Owlman posted and he has been targeting the Living Person this article is about, including harassment of the LP's mother, and is working with a GamerGate harasser called Vordrak, who a mod banned on sight a few years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anglo_Pyramidologist/Archive This is the SPI of him and his brothers (who all live/lived in the same flat so they kept getting caught by CheckUser) which has been going for years, I caught some of them on Wikipedia a few weeks ago trying to spread dox about Wikipedians, and the Functionaries swiftly showed them the door, again. I'm not sure if he is ban evading here (he and his brothers have used multiple accounts here, including BoNs), but he has a 6~ year history of trying to make hit pieces about his internet foes. Lightning Dust (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What did I say? Joshua is getting his attack dogs to come here. Lighting Dust's last edit was May, 2016; inactive for 9 months then shows up here and posts the same lies Joshua is posting about me because he was sent by Josh (who at Kiwi Farms is telling people to come here and delete his page!) I never "harassed" his mother, that's just another story Josh made up. Its Joshua who targets people, their families and harasses them. Josh tried (but failed) to dox my family, then stole my family photos and smeared us by calling us paedophiles; "Vordrak" is just another victim of Kiwi Farms who Joshua has defamed as a paedophile. Kiwi Farms is a harassment website used to post malicious falsehoods about people - its why Google has de-indexed dozens of their thread URLs after receiving legal complaints about defamation, all my own and Vordrak's URL's are blocked by a court order.86.14.2.77 (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Joshua Conner Moon is a real life paedophile, he even admitted it here on this forum to a girl (this is on archive) [15] and could be used as a source on the article, so Joshua Conner Moon is not only a racist, bigot, white supremacist, Far-right trump supporter, sexist, Islamophobic, transphobic he is also a pedo as well who abuses innocent people with autism and makes up false statements about people to damage their careers. It is entirely on mission to have an article on this guy. The mission of Rationalwiki is "Documenting the full range of crank ideas", Josh is about as crank as it gets. Nitro Man (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In my eyes, Moon is an edgelord, e.g. whatever is offensive to people, he is that. He's just a degenerate on all levels. This really isn't far from what the alt-right is, no?

Tangent: In English speak, shotacon is the attraction to male anime children. In Japan, it's just the attraction to male children (shotacon is short for Shōtarō complex). I don't know why English speakers think whacking off to cartoons kids doesn't mean pedophilia. Hell, it's fucking legal in America for Christ sake.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 01:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This discussion was moved here from Talk:Joshua Conner Moon.

• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive270#Farewell_then.2C_KiwiFarms
• http://heatst.com/tech/notorious-forum-kiwi-farms-closed-following-alleged-harassment-of-founders-family/

I'm the ex-sysop from Rationalwiki mentioned on these links, and as the first link also points out - Joshua has harassed other Rationalwiki users. The creator of Joshua Conner Moon article ("Nitro Man") isn't me, but I fully support his edits and I gave him the data on Trans Lifeline. The article is not a hit piece, its just that Joshua has attacked and harassed Rationalwiki sysops, and many other people. His malicious internet trolling has made him infamous and his racism and islamophobia (and targeting of sexual minority groups) justifies the article creation since he's similar to Joshua Bonehill-Paine. There is now an attempt to delete the article, but I think this would be an injustice. The article covers Joshua's harassment of Trans Lifeline, a transgender suicide prevention hotline. One of the co-owner of this hotline showed up at Joshua's home address since Joshua has harassed them with an ongoing smear campaign, as well as doxxing and intimidating them. When one of the co-owners showed up at his address, they were further abused with transphobic comments. Later Joshua went on a radio station to broadcast this abuse. A google search of Joshua Moon's name now shows this article and I believe it should stay in support of all the victims. Joshua of course wants it deleted and is trying to get some of his attack dogs from Kiwi Farms to try to delete it. Joshua spends his existence writing nasty things about people, but as soon as someone writes an accurate article logging his racism and cyberbullying he wants it removed. This would be extremely unfortunate if it is deleted. I can contact Trans Lifeline who are prepared to write a statement in defence of this article.86.14.2.77 (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article. I think there's a case for something like it to remain here. Right now, the article is prime troll bait. A better format might be that of Richard Spencer: just quote JCM, over and over, without inserting opinion. (Leave no room for concern trolls.) If the references/quotes hold up, this would make it black-and-white clear that the article isn't editorializing -- its subject is just shit. What say you, IP editor? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I did edit the page after the AFD was put up. Thoughts?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 00:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, Fuzzy. I don't see how it's not missional, and we don't need a troll magnet. Bongolian (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Olwmangate

How is it a "hit piece" when everything is fully sourced (Joshua Conner Moon is a white nationalist who posted he wants to kill Muslims etc) and other RW sysops were editing it, and approved the page? Also "owlman" just banned Nitro Man (the article creator) for no reason whatsoever.86.14.2.77 (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I banned him because he was trying to get the community to ban a user who hasn't edited since 2015. The user is likely a sock of a person has a vendetta against those who offend him online. (Also, lol, he made an account named Anti racist activist and complimented himself.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Owlman you are a known Kiwi Farms member, likely Josh personally told you to try and delete his article here so please do not pretend to be innocent. You have no recent edits on this website, it is suspicious to say the least your recent behaviour here. You also accusing me of being a sock-puppet which is false. Thank you for revealing yourself though. You support a man who wants to genocide Muslims, and you want to delete a factual page about him? You are not rational. Nitro Man (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Owlman has an older post history, however 2d4chanfag only registered today and most his comments are on this page. Regardless, I always suspected "Owlman" was from Kiwi Farms and recent posts on that forum seem to confirm this; Kiwi Farms boasted it has a Rationalwiki sysop. Ignoring all this pointless drama though - the fact remains Joshua Conner Moon article is not a "hit piece" and it is on mission. You could also add Joshua's support of Alex Jones conspiracy theories and denial of global warming; Joshua is a crank magnet, there's plenty more you can write about his bizarre views, not just his racism.86.14.2.77 (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes my master plan to join this wiki in 2015 as a double agent for KF has worked up until now; a BoN with a history of calling for witch hunts has finally found me out. Foiled, I am, at my greatest moment for I planned to prevent Dear Leader, Joshua Moon, from being documented on a site dedicated to debunking pseudoscience.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

OWLMAN IS A SEEKRIT KF AGENT!!!!!!111!!!SHIFT1!!SHIFToneeleventyone11!!!1!--JorisEnter (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Mansplaining (second discussion) | Result: ehh

Mansplaining (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. There's an article to be made here, one that cites scientific studies about how men and women interact, how arrogance helps men but hurts women, and so on. This article is instead a brief history of "incidents" of mansplaining that does little to defend or debunk the idea. Indeed, several of the "incidents" mentioned are not necessarily mansplaining -- and so our critique of actual mansplaining itself is also weak. This is a poor defense of a potentially-useful concept and poor attack on a potentially-toxic problem. The previous discussion was 6 months ago, and the article has not improved. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 04:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

   so rewrite it. ~~ (Sophie) 12:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Voted Keep last time. This time, you got me with: "This is a poor defense of a potentially-useful concept and poor attack on a potentially-toxic problem". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
3. Delete Zionist Goy (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Is fine. Could be better. Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Keep - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
3. Keep. Christopher (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
4. OP has not bothered, two weeks on, to rewrite the bad parts or to defend his delete reason. Keep. Flannan Isle (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   My reason is literally that RationalWiki, six months on, has not bothered to rewrite the bad parts of the article. :P FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   {{sofixit}} - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

5. If the alleged problem with the article is that it could be good but it is badly written, then the solution is "improve" not "delete".--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Scott Esk | Result: delete

Scott Esk (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Obselete person, also a stub.-DiamondDisc1|1csiDdnomaiD (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
2. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 04:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Agreed.Kodak (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

• Put him in some list of "alleged libertarians not living up to the label"?--ZooGuard (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Certainly worth a mention somewhere (e.g. what ZooGuard proposes). And, of course, if more could be dug up about him and added to his article, the article on him could even be allowed to stay (in a hypothetical improved form). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• Almost notably horrible, and he was a big media splash at the time (hence this article being created). But he was soundly defeated in the primary and hasn't reared his scaly head since - David Gerard (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• That. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Dh/sandbox | Result: Speedy delete

Dh/sandbox (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Mainspace redirect for a user sandbox. Christopher (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Negationism | Result: Redirected to historical revisionism

Negationism (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge/redirect

1. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 05:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
2. It should be redirected and merged into historical revisionism, it's certainly short enough. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Yes, it needs to be merged to historical revisionism. It's been a stub since 2010! Bongolian (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
4. They're right. Spud (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Jim Bunning | Result: Delete by a very narrow margin

Jim Bunning (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Whoever it was that put the delete template on the page wrote, "Out of office, irrelevant to state politics or RW mission." Spud (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Questionable relevance to the mission. There are only three other articles that link to this one. Perhaps he was relevant in 2008 but no more. I recommend removing and changing the three other links to WP links. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Loser article.-President Donald J. Trump (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
4. There's so little here that it could be merged into the GOP article. Ah gaht yer historical perspective right heah I like historical articles but I'm scratching my head as to how this guy is unique or important. We had celebrity pols before him (James J. Walker). Plutoniumboss (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Clearly missional and informative, no reason to delete a perfectly good article - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
2. I like this historical perspective. It's like the article on Charles Coughlin in that it provides historical depth by example to a current phenomenon. Bunning is useful as a reminder that the entertainer turned wingnut turned politician is not a new thing. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

TheAs57 | Result: Deleted

TheAs57 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. So bloody what? Spud (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
2. Not sure what this is supposed to be about.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
3. Seems like a small time youtuber look'n for free hits.--2d4chanfag (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
4. It could be missional, I guess. But it's currently looking awful. Bongolian (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

#Completely unnotable.Christopher (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

• Webshites exists, friend. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 14:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Adapt into an entry in Webshites. Or just delete outright. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

1. An in entry in webshites.Christopher (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
   1. Why even bother with that? This entity seems to be just another youtube tadpole. 85.234.92.172 (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC) (Sophie)

Ariana grande | Result: Snowball's chance in Phlegeton of surviving

Ariana grande (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. No relevance to RW's mission Christopher (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
2. I was hoping GreatPerson had learned not to create shitty articles on random artists.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Moth Theorem | Result: Vaporized

Wikipedia Moth Theorem (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Stub without any relevance to RW's mission. JorisEnter (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
2. No relevance whatsoever to RW's mission. Christopher (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
3. What the hell does that have to do with pseudoscience? TheMyon (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiIndex | Result: Deleted

WikiIndex (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Not used anymore. The Real God (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
2. -【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
3. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
4. The wiki still exists (I'm a registered user and I've edited there this year) but it's incredibly obscure and hardly worth noticing. And the fact that it's for documenting all wikis (not just crackpot ones) means that it's really got sod all to do with our mission. Spud (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
5. Kodak (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
6. Yep. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Editor's index | Result: Delete

RationalWiki:Editor's index (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Last updated 2009 (and shows it). Hopelessly outdated index of RationalWikispace pages. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Would be harmless and could, hypothetically be fixed, but it's almost entirely orphaned, so no one's using it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
3. Nice idea. Too bad the creator and community forgot about it. In its place, some kind of meta guide for editors would be really useful for editors, and for pointing newbies to. For example, I had no idea there was a manual of style until I saw it referenced in the bar a short while ago. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

   Merging this article and Help:Template list might be really nice. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

4. -ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 01:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
5. One more zombie that needs to be put down. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
6. Yea. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• This is probably just the tip of the iceberg. RW's help pages haven't been maintained at all well in the last few years, and they really need someone or two to get in there and update them to reflect current practice, and a useful front page for them. Bicycle^wheel 21:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  Where's project Whitewash now? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Under a stack of 78s, I think. Bicycle^wheel 13:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Essay:The Cult of Taylor Swift | Result: Deleted

Essay:The Cult of Taylor Swift (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. What I said below. Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
2. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
3. Burn it! Burn it to the ground! MWAHAHAHA!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 00:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. What grounds are alleged for deleting a user's essay? Even a silly one? Too much space used on the hard drive, maybe? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

   Petty revenge on a user who was kinda a half-assed vandal some of the time? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Same as Smerdis. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 07:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Goat

This should be deleted because it has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and is possibly inflammatory/libelous. It's by far the worst of Elvis' essays.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Response to the above: it's potentially libelous, and the author apparently views this as a serious topic. Probably the worst essay of his to keep around. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Systems thinking | Result: Keep

Systems thinking (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This once appeared to be a source-heavy hitpiece on systems thinking. Now, it's a useless stub. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 01:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep

1. Revert to the better version, in that case. Issues with the article can be worked out. We need more pages on vacuous management buzzwords. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Revert to a better version.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Seems relevant to RW and not off the wall in terms of contents or brevity. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Behavioral economics | Result: Keep by a very narrow margin

Behavioral economics (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Poorly sourced. At best, a merge to economics. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
2. I have studied Behavioral Economics. It's a solid field. There's nothing to debunk here. Rational1 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Just because the article has no source is not a reason to delete it, it's a reason to make it better. The article doesn't need to merge with economics, it's fine as an article of it's own. Diacelium (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Improve don't delete.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 07:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
3. I think this topic merits an article of its own and this does not automatically mean that it needs debunking as Rational1 assumes above. RW has several articles on, say, the Sun, physics, and medicine. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
4. -DiamondDisc1|1csiDdnomaiD (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

1926 General Strike | Result: No consensus

1926 General Strike (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Content is interesting but too encyclopedic -- anything relevant should go to Red-baiting, IMO. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep

1. It leads up to a section on a specific conspiracy theory, is fairly well written and referenced compared to other articles of similar lengths, so I'd like to keep it. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Goat

I dunno. I'd definitely want a British person who understands the cultural context to weigh in. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Snobbery see-saw | Result: Deleted

Snobbery see-saw (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Neologism with no use in the outside world posted by IP, fails to make its case, I'm entirely unconvinced David Gerard (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Delete. Google returns only one result: RationalWiki. Bongolian (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
3. -💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Difficult to follow and I doubt that this is an actual thing.--WMS (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
5. I did not understand this page at all. I'm happy to find out that snobbery see-saw is not even "a thing". That means we can just nuke the page and don't have to worry about improving it. Spud (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
6. Actually tried contacting the author and giving the benefit of the doubt. Prognosis: Negative. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Crosby | Result: Deleted

Donald Crosby (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. There's not much content on the Internet to expand the article with what's already been stated, the amount of content on the page has barely changed for the past 6 years and I do not think it is very missional.--WMS (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Loser article, bigly!-President Donald J. Trump ^{Mr. USA, build up this wall!} 20:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
3. —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 21:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Unless someone has a stack of excellent sources on him, he's not going to make any more headlines. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
5. What RBP said. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
6. Nearly seven years ago, somebody said that a high school shouldn't have a demon as a mascot. His 15 minutes of fame have long since passed but we still have an article about him. A stubby, unsourced one at that. Let's get rid of this article. And, in the future, let's try not to create ones about everyone who says, "God wouldn't like it." Spud (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
7. (Shrugs) Who cares. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Mansplaining | Result: keep, perhaps someone can bother with rewrite plans

Mansplaining (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. This is ultimately a gender-based insult that doesn't add to social justice discourse -- it alienates rather than unifies allies of feminism. Having an article on mansplaining -- and supporting it wholeheartedly (with the exception of the embedded video) is like having an article on "fedora'd neckbearded basement-dwelling men". There is some scientific basis for males valuing female conversation less -- but this article does not reflect that, and perhaps cannot reflect that. Moreover, the current article essentially takes all cases of "males do something that goes against female interests" and claims it is "mansplaining". Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

   The article covers: men telling women they are wrong about the effects of rape, abortion, or birth control, a solely male group being named experts on birth control for the purposes of telling women how they're allowed to receive it, men telling women that they don't understand what it's like to be subjected to sexism, men having a panel about the question "why don't women like us" then shooting down the answers that women gave them, and a man telling a woman that she was wrong that women like her often felt objectified at conferences. It is quite disingenuous to portray that simply as "males do something that goes against female interests" -- these are each cases where men are telling women that the women don't truly understand what it's like to be a woman.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

   ...And regardless of if we like the term or not, it is missional and established, and furthermore - any criticism of the actual term it self also belongs in said article about the term. TL;DR: keep. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

2. --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 12:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 12:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
3. One problem with feminist discourse is that so little of it is about women. This article on a stupid bit of cant does us no favors, and basically condemns 49% of the human race for following the stereotypical assumptions shared by their culture. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
4. there are already terms for this kind of bebavior, why does this case need its own special term? Why must i learn bullshit terms invented by idiots to pretend i'm part of the in crowd? All internet portmanteau words should burn in a fire. Manufactroversy should be incinerated too, and its ashes scattered to the winds to prevent it becoming a shrine to ugly words that stick in the pallet when spoken aloud. These are words never uttered by human tongues. Many of these terms would be better placed in urban dictionary. That jolly list of MRA terms compiled by folk with far too much time on their hands especially. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

   If you're going to complain about people using language wrong, I hope you're aware that a "pallet" is a shipping container, and "bebavior" either looks like a typo or a neologism relating to Justin Bieber. --Ymir (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

5. Delete it. PBfreespace (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Applesauce (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
7. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
8. Nothing about this or so many SJW tropes is remotely on mission. Conscience (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep

1. No way. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Don't be inane. - David Gerard (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
3. I'm not convinced it alienates male allies, and even if it did, that's no reason to delete. Annquin (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

   It alienates me, and I'm a would-be male ally. I'm not a fan of third-wave feminism because of buzzwords like 'mansplaining'. It makes people who use it look like entitled little pricks, no offense. PBfreespace (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

   A would-be ally who has to constantly be told how helpful they are and given all the attention was never an ally in the first place.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

4. Vulpius (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
5. The term is established and missional, so regardless of what we think of it, it should be covered. That being said, I think the term is a sexist term of abuse. I've actually been accused of mansplaining once in the wild, over an app called QuizUp, by a female who didn't even know I was a man - she just assumed. Whatever the term means, she was making a fallacious argument and I pointed that out, without bringing genitalia into the discussion. Doing that was somehow mansplaining; the message being that I had to shut up because I was the wrong sex, or something to that effect. The article is an obvious keep, and all valid criticisms should go in the article. If there's a lot to say on the term, then grow the article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Don't see how this scares off potential allies. It would be better though with the addition of a legitimate criticism section and maybe how the usual non-ally suspects respond to the phenomenon.∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 19:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

   It scares me off, as a would-be male ally. Now of course, this term isn't the sole thing scaring me off; part of it is the 29 other derisive terms. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

   A would-be ally who has to constantly be told how helpful they are and given all the attention was never an ally in the first place.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

7. It is really a thing, and as such there is something to document. Though the article itself is largely nonsense, and the part about Elevatorgate is your usual fiction writing. Watson discussed with Paula Kirby and others in a previous panel. Then the lift incident happened (a guy invited her for coffee in the confined lift) and she made the video retelling this non-event. She then had a spat with several female youtubers, including Stef McGraw, who made video responses. No mansplaining whatsoever. Then she made severe accusations at the beginning of a CFI Talk against McGraw, the audience "right now" and the atheist movement at large that they were allegedly complicit in rape culture — Watson literally brings up rape in context of an awkward lift coffee invite — and THIS is where it took off. Problem was, that many had not seen the talk, including Dawkins, leading to the familiar Motte and Bailey situation where Elevatorgate becae two and more things at once, which our favourite propagandameisters keep switching around like thimblerigger in Palermo. Dawkins responds to the "zero bad" situation, while the ongoing flamewar was already about rape culture, which then led the SJW zealots to pretend most people "hate women" because, thanks to the switch, they mean rape, while other people think it's about awkward proposals in confined spaces. Congratulations, btw, five years of massive disinformation, well done. ~ Aneris ✻ 13:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
8. If "regressive left" can remain then so can this one. Typhoon (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
9. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
10. But why? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
11. Definite keep.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
12. We're debating this?-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 00:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
13. Perhaps we should incorporate this article into the article? Just because its a controversial new concept should not justify the need to delete it from Rationalwiki. Let's not delude into Conservapedia logic with new ideas AmericanExceptionalism2016 (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
14. The term exists and is used and the question of whether it alienates specific groups is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to the question of whether RW should have an article on it. The only reason I'd support a delete would be if delete proponents could make a case the article is wholly wrong in its depictions of the term and its use or some similar "It's an unfair hatchet job" line. So far, I haven't seen any of that. I think, however, that a splaining could serve as a new home for this article, given that it has given rise to other splaining versions (I'm guessing that, in practice, whitesplaining is probably the most frequent variant in the US). A Google search on the variants of splaining are indicative: mansplaining (536,000 hits), splaining (146,000 hits), whitesplaining (31,800 hits), leftsplaining (1130 hits), rightsplaining (547 hits). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Just to highlight the suggestions in the Goat section below to create a new, general article about splaining, though given the prevalence suggested by the Google search results I mentioned in my Keep vote, it could be argued that other types of splaining should be a subsection of mansplaining. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Goat

Well, we could always call it "condesplaining" since the article itself talks other forms of "'splaining" to other minorities on minority issues.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 07:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

second thought, i agree with this. Rename Splaining and have "mansplaining" links go there. Examples are turds like Bill O'Rielly telling black Americans how to fix their communities. Petey Plane (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

splaining is a term that is actually in currency too. Support move - David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Support move.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I would have no problem with calling it "splaining" but we would need to give more examples of people being condescending to minorities on issues that concern them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 18:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Is "splaining" really a term that is in currency too? If so, I support a move too. But I've never heard "splaining" as a stand-alone term, outside of it being short for "explaining"; like the way people say "telly" instead of "television" or whatever. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

this thread from 2012 suggests that privilege could be a good target too. Bicycle^wheel 20:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

So you are proposing that we cut down this article and reduce to a section about "splaining" minority issues while being blind to your privilege.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 20:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That could work. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Would the "keep"ers be happy with splaining? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on the way Petey Plane and Gerard describe it above; yes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I support this. It lets us expand the article as well. --Ymir (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, editors should be expected to have produced a document to RationalWiki moderators or board members which demonstrate sufficiently their female gender/sex proper. Surely, people without such documentation should refrain from mansplaining in the splaining article. Likewise, sections about whitesplaining shall only ever be edited by people of colour proper. This should be true for all axes of oppression in this scientific rigorous, mathematically proven Matrix of Domination. Let's try to make this article scientifically accurate and complete, and add all intersectional categories described by experts in the field who totally agree that there are 3—14 intersectional categories (depending on who you ask, naturally). These categories are: (1) race (2) sex and (3) class as the Triple Oppression model, which is outdated, plus potentially (4) gender, (5) health, (6) religous/secular, (7) ethnicity , (8) culture, (9) nationality, (10) location west or rest, (11) age , (12) settled/nomad, (13) society status primitive/developed, (14) possessions. If you doubt the solidity of this rigorous work, please read Social Justice where you learn about levels of analysis, which is Science proper. The levels of analysis in this case follow the Collect-Underpants—Questionmark—Profit model of research. I personally have no plans to send documents to anyone, but I genuinely look forward to this article. I'm sure it can get a Gold Status soon, and be recommended to others along other science articles, like e.g. Evolution. ~ Aneris ✻ 04:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the criticisms against the term are as missional as the term itself is. And clearly, much can be said against it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

None of the articles are critical in any important way, and many here are fully into Intersectionality, too, as the foremost ideology within American Secularism (actually, it's Critical Race Theory, which contains Intersectionality as one key element). I might add, I only found references to fourteen axes at most, but that model did not mention (15) cis/trans, which is obviously a thing for social justice warriors, too. And there's yet another one that comes up frequently, (16) neurotypical/neurodivergent. ~ Aneris ✻ 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

CRT includes intersec

FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

e.g.
*http://www.odec.umd.edu/CD/RACE/CRT.PDF
*also see Kimberlé Crenshaw
~ Aneris ✻ 00:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Patriarchy | Result: most votes towards delete or merge

Patriarchy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Unsourced mess -- better to redirect to feminism. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
2. Agreed. Let's abolish patriarchy!! —HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 18:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
3. Agree. Applesauce (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
4. Down with Patriarchy! AnonASP (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
5. Article is terrible and needs a page one rewrite. PB (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
6. Complete re-write needed. All 6 links in "Footnote" are irrelevant. ^{— Unsigned, by: Rational1 / talk / contribs}
7. Let's delete it. That would be a step in the right direction. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

   BurgerDominar (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

   No Pb, socks still don't count in voting.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

8. Vaporise and redo from scratch. Subject is missional, but there's really nothing to salvage here. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. It was lacking in references but most claims appear justifiable and can easily be sourced. Patriarchy denial is a very missional topic, and we should also discuss the pseudohistory around matriarchy (Goddess movement does cover one aspect of this). Annquin (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
2. Keep but gut the current mess of a text and rewrite from scratch. "Patriarchy" is an important term and we can do much to dispel myths on all sides of the debate. Worzelpete (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
3. Regardless of your stance on the patriarchy (or its existance), the term itself deserves its own article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
4. The "favored gender" bit of the first sentence is meaningless, and much of the article's phrasing is hyperbolic and lacking in appropriate nuance. That said, it needs sources and a rewrite, but it deserves its own article. B) talk 05:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
5. The current article may not be it, but this is something we definitely need an article on. This is one of the world's most famous conspiracy theories, after all. The concept's roots in 19th century speculative anthropology should be pointed out. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
6. I think there is plenty of information on the idea of patriarchy and how it is defined that it should stay a separate article.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Perhaps some of this could be merged into Feminism after a thorough scrub. Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
2. I would also support just giving the Feminism article a newly written section on the concept of patriarchy. If that is the intention, you may count my Keep vote as a Delete vote. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
3. Merge with Feminism.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 18:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
4. -Blue Eyes White Dragon (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Just merge it, or expand on the concept on the Feminism page at the very least--Pokefrazer (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• Merged it, since most votes were towards delete or merge. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Paul Crouch | Result: deleted and redirected to Trinity Broadcasting Network

Paul Crouch (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Adequately covered in the Trinity Broadcasting Network article. Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
2. -DiamondDisc1|1csiDdnomaiD (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
3. If there was actually anything to merge into TBN, I'd have voted merge, but with essentially no info on Crouch to merge, I suggest a simple zapping with a redirect to TBN. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Merge and redirect to TBN - David Gerard (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
2. What David said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki:IRC | Result: Deleted

RationalWiki:IRC (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. The irc channel still exists, but appears to be quite dead. So quiet you can even hear the pings. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Above reason.-DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Dead, gone, sweep up the ashes. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Nope FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Time to put it to sleep.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 19:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
6. *Wipes away single nostalgic tear a bit with a large trout.* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. I prefer to do things my way!!! TheGrandmother (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Linda Norgrove | Result: Deleted

Linda Norgrove (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Hopelessly off-mission. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Delete unless the author can come up with justification. Bongolian (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Interesting but off-mission. Spud (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
4. -DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Entirely unclear how this is missional - David Gerard (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
6. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
7. Off with its head! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
8. Chop! Chop chop! ScepticWombat (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Amilton de Cristo | Result: Daid

Amilton de Cristo (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Unlikely to ever be more than a puny stub article. Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
2. If it's still only one and a half lines long after two and a half years, it should be put out of its misery. Spud (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Considered axe bait years ago (according to its talk page), nothing has changed, so, one more for the chop. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Social Credit | Result: not ded

Social Credit (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Sourceless article that does little to debunk a supposedly crank theory, and instead focuses on Canadian politics. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Not convinced this should be deleted. Its relevance is that the Canadian party was actually a force for quite a while - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Seems like the article needs work, rather than it being of dubious missionality. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Keep the article, and improve. Diacelium (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
4. It needs some work and at least a few proper references, but is worth keeping. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Work on it and keep.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
6. Could use work, but is neither completely irrelevant or stubby. We do have other stuff on Canadian politics too, so... ScepticWombat (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan McIntosh | Result: ded

Jonathan McIntosh (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Questionable missionality, magnet for random axe-grinding, should be a passing mention on Anita Sarkeesian at best, queries as to why this living person article is even here on talk page go unanswered - David Gerard (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
2. ded Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
3. Merge anything useful to the Anita article and delete the rest. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
4. -【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
5. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 22:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
6. If we're not going to have an article that addresses and criticizes the subject's factually incorrect statements and beliefs, we shouldn't have one at all. PBfreespace (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Half of the things on this wiki are targets for axe grinding. It's the nature of the beast. 76.5.20.117 (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Entirely on-mission, just needs work. Applesauce (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   If you can provide work for it, that would make the case better - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Article is completely missional, as it's related to Gamergate and radical feminism. It could be greatly improved with more examples of his nuttery. In fact, why don't I do that right now. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   "he doesn't like capitalism!!" well I'm convinced. no wait - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   That entire section was you coming up with bizarre interpretations of individual tweets from long discussions so you could find something to object to. It's ridiculous axe grinding and - and this is the important bit - well below what we expect of a living person article - David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

3. AnonASP (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Goat

1. Strip Pbfreespace's gatoring out of the article. What remains can either be expanded with more relevant & reasonable content or merged into the Anita Sarkeesian entry. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Is there anything that isn't? If you take that stuff out there's no "there" there - David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   The article as of July 2016, before Pbfreespace3 pooped all over it - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   I'm upset at being treated this way, having my entire edits on the article (which composed most of it) be deleted, and being called names to add insult to injury. PBfreespace (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   Maybe you should write better. Just because you have these feelings doesn't dismiss the fact that your edits were bad.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 03:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   How were they bad edits? Every single thing that was written there was factually correct. What part do you disagree with? I'm curious to see where exactly you disagree with the text. PBfreespace (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   If this is a serious question, then you haven't been paying attention. Let's be real, everyone who has an online pretense would have an article if we didn't have a boundary on ax grinding. People say questionable stuff time to time. Reserve rational wiki articles for people who actually deserve to have one.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 03:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   I've detailed precisely why they were bad: (1) you're nutpicking at individual tweet level (2) with wild surmise based on the text of a tweet (3) to assert fairly normative positions are noteworthily bizarre. Also (4) you're a terrible editor - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

   Just reverted to the July 2016 version - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Don't give a rat's ass either way. Effin' "Gamergate" can go hang for all I care. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Cuckservative | Result: delete

Cuckservative (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Rather than leave this page as a perpetual stub it would be better to make an alt-right glossary along the lines of the manosphere glossary. Bongolian (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
2. I agree, it makes more organizational sense. Applesauce (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Ditto. Spud (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Make an alt-right glossary.-【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
5. There's an extensive article to be written on this topic and this isn't it. I believe this is even shorter than the TODO list entry saying we should have it - David Gerard (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
6. WTF? ScepticWombat (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Dallas Baptist University | Result: Merge with fundie school

Dallas Baptist University (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge/redirect

1. There should be a page where we can list all these stubs of creationist schools and not have to create a stub for each one.-【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
2. I think there is: The list of fundie schools. Just add the commentary that's "keep-worthy" in the box marked "Notes" and/or using the "note" template used for commentary elsewhere. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
3. This is one of Rationalzombie's many stub pages. This school is covered adequately on the fundie school page and can be safely deleted after being merged. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Loma Linda University | Result: Merge with fundie school

Loma Linda University (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge/redirect

1. Same reasons as the Dallas Baptist entry. Delete and merge with fundie schools.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 23:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Merge into fundie schools. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
3. There's no need to bring each of these individually to AFD, just do it - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
4. -Blue Eyes White Dragon (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Deepity | Result: keep, also keep

Deepity (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete

1. Some dude's friend's daughter? It's a joke, no academic recognition or credibility, no proof that anyone actually makes these statements in their "meaningless" sense. Rational1 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   You're an idiot. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   You may be right but that's not an argument Rev. Also, perhaps consider cutting back the face palming a little or you'll end up concussed.

   (EC)That said, did Rational1 just refer to Daniel Dennett as "some dude"? ScepticWombat (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Kindly counter each and every part of my point. For parts that are incorrect - explain, for parts that are correct - say that you agree with me and make the required changes to the article. It's very easy to call someone an idiot. Rational1 (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   See the section below, Rational1... ScepticWombat (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   How clumsy of me — here's my two cents on what you're trying to get across. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   You guys have clumsy, vague, broad articles that you can point to in almost any and all cases? Rational1 (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Hey, stop hacking my webcam! How else would you know I'm "clumsy, vague, broad"? ScepticWombat (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Engage in constructive talk, I do not like this. This is supposed to be an intellectual space and not an hostile place. Rational1 (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. High google ranking article on mission-related neologism. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   You can't just make up stuff and keep it just because of high ranking. Rational1 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Hey cool, I didn't even know we had a concern troll (or bait) template. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   The moar you know! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

2. Definitely keep. The Weasel makes excellent points as to why. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Good neologism that describes a lot of New Agey scam artist "philosophy." MyNameIsMudd (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Kindly provide links to these "New Agey scam artist philosophy" that you are talking about. Rational1 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   The article on bullshit cited at the end of this RW article already specifically mentions Deepak Chopra... The quote in the section on protection crystals in our article on crystal woo is arguably also an example. Not to mention that this style of rhetoric is par for the course for all kinds of gurus, see for instance WikiQuote's section on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for just one example. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Why aren't these links and these sentences mentioned in the article? Rational1 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Wait! I know this one! It's because of media bias, right? Oh, and the RW article already cites the article I linked to. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   It doesn't cites the wikiQuotes by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and that's what I was talking about. Rational1 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   I was merely demonstrating how quickly and easily I could find examples of "New Agey scam artist "philosophy"", "kindly", of course. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Then why don't you find a lot of them and edit the article to include them, thereby making some progress? Rational1 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   Why don't you stop and consider or try looking stuff up and perhaps adding them to the article before you start just asking questions? ScepticWombat (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

   It is a completely made up concept, with no credibility, you adding those links and references would make the article a bit stronger. My stance remains the same. I ask you to include those to improve the article just because ever since my first day here, it looks like we discuss a lot but little to no changes are actually made to the articles. ^{— Unsigned, by: Rational1 / talk / contribs}

   Yeah, strange that... ScepticWombat (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

4. —チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 17:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Per Weasel and CBF.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
6. -D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
7. Forgot to vote. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)