RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Information icon.svg The 2018 moderator election has started! We are electing 6 moderators and 2 alternatives to serve in 2019. Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
There are 4 pages marked for deletion:
For the German political party known as AfD, see Alternative für Deutschland.

Some articles on RationalWiki are ripe for plucking and deletion. If you think an article fits this description (and there is no page that it could be better merged with), here are the steps to take to put it on this page:

  1. Add {{Article for deletion}} or {{Article for deletion|Reason}} to the top of the page you think needs deletion.
  2. Press the save button to get the rest of the instructions to populate.
  3. The second line of instructions that appear below the deletion template allow for pre-populating a discussion, click that button, replace the word "Reason" with your reasoning for wanting to delete the article.
  4. Finally add {{RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/ReplaceMeWithTheArticleName}} to top of this list. Don't forget to change the ReplaceMeWithTheArticleName to the proper article name from step 3.

Please notify the creator/main editor(s), particularly if it's new and the users are active.

Then wait a while and see what the mob thinks, unless there's an actual reason it needs to be taken out and shot quickly (e.g., severely problematic living person bio).

If the article you are attempting to create an AfD page for has had an AfD before, you will have to create a new subpage manually. Preferably, make it useful and easy to refer to in the future, such as putting the month or date or a version number of the second Afd.

If you are attempting to merge the article with another, PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS PAGE. That belongs at RationalWiki:Duplicate articles.

Also, if you think an article is substandard but still potentially on-mission, remember that a move to Draft: space might be sufficient.

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

To archive:

  1. Edit the AFD page to change the result from "?" to "deleted" or "kept" or whatever.
  2. Go to RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Log and remove the {{RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Article}}.
  3. Go to the 2018 archives and add {{RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Article}} at the top of the stack.

After deleting, add Category:Talk pages for deleted articles to the talk page if it has one.

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/This website is a disgrace

Joel Brind | Result: ?[edit]

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


  1. Needs more content. 【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


  1. Needs more content? So write more content. Avida Dollarsher again 12:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    It's not DiamondDisc1's obligation to expand an article he tagged for deletion. If an article conveys so little information that it might as well be a red link, then that's grounds for deletion. Having bland single-sentence articles does not make our wiki look good, and it's better to rework from scratch than have the article remain. Stubs are not inherently bad; it's when stubs are effortless, have no potential to be expanded (i.e. no resources), and do not inform. Having a stub article be composed of a few paragraphs, but well sourced statements is acceptable. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    His complaint was that it was too short, and therefore, needs to be lengthened, and therefore, ought to be kept. So why does he want it deleted? Avida Dollarsher again 14:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. I'm with @Avida Dollars. If it's a stub that needs expansion, then expand it! If we were to just delete every little stub because they're stubs, then we may as well delete every last article in the "stubs" category. BadPiggies9My experiments 21:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. I'm not sure what this person's role is on abortion and breast cancer pseudoscience, but this person's publication has elicited a response by Journal of the National Cancer Institute, so it seems significant enough for that organization to publish it. I'm not sure how editorials work for that journal, if it reflects the journal's views, however. Nevertheless, this person did receive mainstream press attention, which should be worthy enough. This article, the bulk being about anti-abortion pseudoscience, is categorized strangely, as I feel it's more fit to use {{abortion}} rather than creationism. But in the end, there is no article on that sort of pseudoscience, so I was going to support merge/redirect, but that's if the article exists, and I'm not talking about Evidence linking abortion to breast cancer. Surprisingly, no article exists, and we don't even have much of a discussion of abortion/breast cancer pseudoscience in the parent abortion article! --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)



Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez | Result: ?[edit]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)


  1. A pitifully tiny stub that doesn't further RationalWiki's mission. So she's a Democratic Socialist that surprised the establishment with an impressive primary victory. So what? She's done nothing to warrant an article of her own, and a mention in the Democratic Socialists of America article should suffice. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Tiny puff piece that does nothing beyond state obvious/unimportant information and give one-liner rebuttals to some accusations that no one gives a shit about. We're RationalWiki, not Diet Wikipedia. I thought the article might get better in the future, but it clearly hasn't. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC) [UPDATE: Well, she's won and it looks like there's been a single-sentence update that makes the article even more of a puff piece. (Pretty much what I said would happen). Can we finish this now? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)]
  3. I think the plague of articles on minor congressmen that has never been updated since they were first written is kind of a problem, and adding to it is not the solution. I mean, this article is a few months old and says almost nothing about what she actually believes. Delete, or redirect to draftspace when someone wants to actually expand this article. Edit: Conditional vote for delete, so long as vote lasts until Nov. 9, 2018. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. She may have won, but I don't think we should have an article on her yet.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 01:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  5. Off-mission. I fail to see what this has anything to do with the topics this wiki focuses on. BadPiggies9Steal my ideas 21:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  6. Seems to be just a low-content puff-piece on the kind of person we like. Similar articles have bitten the dust in the past (eg Woody Guthrie and Blaise Pascal). Avida Dollarsher again 09:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


  1. Keepicare-for-All! (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)



  • I mean, it'd help the case for deletion if she lost the upcoming election. Couldn't you have put this off for like... a week? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Let's wait till after the midterm elections. If she wins and becomes better known, this page will almost certainly be expanded; there are a lot of editors here who are interested in politics. If she loses and fades away, her page can then be deleted. Nerd (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • AFD votes usually sit for a while, so I'm sure we'll be able to see the midterm results. Even if she wins though, I doubt this article will see much improvement beyond a one or two sentence update. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    According to most polls, she's a lock to win. Fivethirtyeight says there's a >99% chance she will take the seat. I considered this before creating the AfD. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    Like I said above, her victory will likely do nothing to improve the article. If this AFD fails, I'll wait until the end of the year before trying again and gloating about how right I was. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    My general feeling is that if a self-declared socialist, like member of a socialist party socialist, not a Bernie "if [having certain policies] makes me socialist then I guess I am" socialist, makes it into national office, the inane(and missional) backlash will be measurable pretty quickly. That's extrapolating, but would you bet against it? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    I'm betting on her being another Obama. But hey, you never know. (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    Obama was a magnet for conspiracy theories though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    Only because he was president. Who makes conspiracy theories about representatives? Avida Dollarsher again 13:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

SJWiki | Result: ?[edit]

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


  1. This article was deleted in 2015 and recently restored by @BadPiggies 9. The original reason for deletion was: Off-mission: Minor wikis with n o edits are not article content, regardless of whether the topic is mission. CowHouse (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. It's a very small stub that conveys barely any useful information. I'd go for expand, given if the wiki is notable to begin with, but either way, it cannot remain in its current state, and it should at the very least go to draft space. As for the merge option to a list, I believe that's another issue for another day, but we went through a Youtube purge and it might be worth looking into what websites to keep or to discard using similar criteria. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. Why are we covering a stillborn wiki? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  4. Doesn't seem missional at all. Dan Smith (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


  1. We have tried to add lots of content to this article, and there seems to be quite a bit of information here. It is also quite relevant because SJWiki was (probably) created in response to us, as you will see in the article. Also, it is definitely missional, and should definitely be covered here on RW because it is a huge embarrassment to feminism, social justice, and the progressive left. It now has even more content than it did before, and I still see some more potential for this article on SJWiki. B'P"9 04:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. It's missional. RW has never been about notability and it's annoying that wannabe Wikipedians are trying to make it that way. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 17:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. As above. -Lankaster (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


  1. Add it to the list of wikis we already have. Contrary to what the above rationale for deleting the article was, SJWiki is missional because it deals heavily with social justice issues, just as RW does as well, although we don't focus exclusively on social justice, it's just one of many subjects that fall under the purview of our mission.--Palaeonictis (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    But there is a point to this. Remember the Youtube purge? Shouldn't we also try to filter what we cover and what we don't cover on the same ideas that something should be notable enough? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    Then why should we have spaces on the wiki dedicated to such "noteworthy" wikis such as Liberapedia? Should we do a wiki purge as well? I believe that there should be a limitation to these purges, and one must find a balance between missionality and notability.--Palaeonictis (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. Above reason.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 14:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. I agree. We should just merge it with our already-existing article on wikis- just like Liberapedia, Uncyclopedia, and the others. Also, it is missional, since it focuses exclusively on social justice (like us), albeit to a far more extreme level. Also, its articles seem to go on and on about how evil all priveleged people are, to the point that it's almost like the far-left equivalent of CP. It's funny. B'P"9 18:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    Do you mean "extensively"? We don't focus exclusively on social justice. CowHouse (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    I never said we did. B'P"9 04:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    Quote: "Also, it is missional, since it focuses exclusively on social justice (like us)". CowHouse (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    Nah, CowHouse, don't be pedantic. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  4. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 04:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  5. A section on the wiki page is all that this needs. Spud (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


  • FWIW, it was inspired by one of the RW Facebook groups, so it's vaguely descended from RW. List in the wikis article? Maybe - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems pretty dead, not that that stops us from documenting citizendidumb. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A whole lot of meh is all I have to say about this. (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Alt-righters | Result: ?[edit]

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


  1. I don't think it's particularly useful to have a separate category for alt-right personalities, considering most of our alt-right articles are about the personalities. Just put them in Category:Alt-right. (Btw, a lot already are and having both categories at the bottom just looks silly.) (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. It's an unnecessary subcategory. CowHouse (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. Agreed. Spud (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  4. Yeah, it seems pretty redundant. Binarystep (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  5. Do away with redundant categories. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  6. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  7. Nerd (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


  1. There are 54 articles in this category. The parent category has 63 articles about alt-right slogans, websites, mkovements and organisations. Even considering a small number of those are one-person bands, there are still enough to be worth keeping the two separate. (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)
    So, why not merge the subcategories? Are you sure those don't overlap already with Category:Alt-right? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    Why not give a reasion beyond "why not?" Maybe it's better to keep individual people distinct from groups, slogans and concepts. (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)
    My question, since it wasn't clear, was a semi-rhetorical one. How the categories are organized is all over the place. We don't have Category:Sexists Or Category:Ableists (but we have Category:Sexism and Category:Ableism), but we do have both on Category:Racists/Category:Racism and Category:Anti-Semites/Category:Anti-Semitism and Category:Homophobes/Category:Homophobia. We have individuals/organizations categorized in Homophobia and Racism also despite the categorizes for individuals/organizations existing. My point is we really need to clean up categories and apply some consistency here. While we do have split categories for individuals and the concepts, the overlapping thing is a problem, and this isn't helping, so I think we should discuss that first before we have a category that does little to distinguish between individuals/organizations and concepts. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. I agree with the BoN above, the "Alt-righters" sub-cat serves its purpose. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    the BON? Blimey, log out round here and suddenly you're chopped liver. (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    Given that I have no idea who you are outside a Bunch of Numbers (BoN), what else should I refer to you as? Sam? Bob? Dave? Sally? Alice? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    I had hoped that putting my name in brackets at the end might be some sort of clue... (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC) (Sam, Bob, Dave, Sally, Alice Sophie)
    Ah, my apologies. Given that your original post lacks your usual signature I was unaware that it was you. EDIT: I apparently need more caffeine, since the signature is indeed there.☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    And maybe I need to come up with yet another Marcel Duchamp-based username as my latest LANCB has gone the way of all the others :( (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)
  3. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  4. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


  1. Since this topic doesn't seem to be reaching consensus, I propose that Alt-Righters be merged into Alt-right. Alt-right has 126 articles in it, of which about 51 are people. It looks like it would be easier to avoid confusion by merging the two categories together. LeftyGreenMario's analysis is spot on; we should also take a look at categories like this throughout the wiki and try and make them more consistent. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
    Just noting that this doesn't seem meaningfully different from what is proposed under "Delete". (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    Good point. Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. Above reason.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 00:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely. And again I think the problem (in most of the cases where something like this happens on the wiki) is templates that come with categories attached to them. Spud (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. We should just make this category a redirect to the "Alt-right" category- just like how the "Atheists" category redirects to the "Atheism" category. BadPiggies9See what I've been messing around with 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


I have on specific concern: doesn't the wording we've chosen sound dumb? "righters" that sounds like a 1980s british neologism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

There was "rightist" but it was co-opted by leftists to describe centrists. Avida Dollarsher again 14:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)