Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt-right pipeline: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Alt-right pipeline: Reply |
!Vote via XFD Participation tool |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*:@[[User:Vacant0|Vacant0]] This case aside this is very not true. We have deleted many GAs. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 20:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
*:@[[User:Vacant0|Vacant0]] This case aside this is very not true. We have deleted many GAs. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 20:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
||
*::Such as? [[User:Vacant0|<span style="color:#5E9A4A;font-weight:bold">Vacant</span><span style="color:#A24B4B;font-weight:bold">0</span>]] <span style="font-size:small">([[User talk:Vacant0|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vacant0|contribs]])</span> 20:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
*::Such as? [[User:Vacant0|<span style="color:#5E9A4A;font-weight:bold">Vacant</span><span style="color:#A24B4B;font-weight:bold">0</span>]] <span style="font-size:small">([[User talk:Vacant0|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vacant0|contribs]])</span> 20:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
||
* '''Keep''': 8 and 9 are strong sources about this concept, mostly using Youtube as an example. I suppose the article could be refocused more towards that site, but this isn't a clean-up effort. [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 21:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC) <!--VCB Oaktree b--> |
|||
Revision as of 21:02, 27 September 2024
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Alt-right pipeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is sourced almost entirely to puff piece 'studies' with no real peer review and opinion articles, with a number of the quoted studies showing the exact opposite of the article's premise. To be blunt, this article is just as much of an opinion piece as the many, many crappy opinion pieces it cribs from. Because the purpose of the article is begging the question, it should either be shitcanned or, at best, heavily reworked to make it quite clear that it's a conspiracy theory. Jtrainor (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep – this is a GA and the nomination doesn't actually provide a good reason for deletion. If there are issues with the article, I suggest suggesting changes on talk, instead of starting an AfD. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as creator, the nomination is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Something felt off about this, since an IP deleted a bunch of reliable sources just a little while before this, and apparently this user has already been warned for frivolous deletion nominations multiple times going back to 2011: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1111#Jtrainor and XfD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The promotion of this article to GA status already indicates that it meets the notability threshold. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Vacant0 This case aside this is very not true. We have deleted many GAs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Such as? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Vacant0 This case aside this is very not true. We have deleted many GAs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: 8 and 9 are strong sources about this concept, mostly using Youtube as an example. I suppose the article could be refocused more towards that site, but this isn't a clean-up effort. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)