Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational Response Squad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. It was a borderine case for A7/G11 speedy deletion in any case; non-sock votes were overwhelmingly delete; save everyone the hassle of this attracting a further 100 sock or meatpuppets in the next 24 hours which it looks set to do. The Land 19:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rational Response Squad

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

"small radio production group founded in 2006", the stations which air this radio show are all redlinked, and their own website has an Alexa ranking of 4,442,813. Punkmorten 10:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. MER-C 11:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 12:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete' Lots of Google hits, but nothing I would call a reliable source. It doesn't look verifiable to me. -- Donald Albury 18:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete'. The information presented on the page seems to admit its own non-notability by focusing on the notable people who have been featured on the program, and not the program itself. The fact that its two main members use MySpace as a home page is also indicative of the notability problem. Most of the reading about its notable guests fail to mention their connection to the program, or do so in a very limited way. Consequentially 03:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete'. I have been working with this article recently, and I've been continually deleting comments that seem to be promotionals. If it is not to be deleted, (which is also completely fine) then it needs to be seriously cleaned up, allowing non-biased claims, removing self-praising claims in the article. (sorry for not having a wiki account, I haven't taken the initiative to make one). 75.18.189.236 03:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The atheist community is obviously going to be a smaller subset of the population that that of christianity. The Rational Response Squad is a notable entity. They play as one of the two most popular shows on the largest free thought internet radio station. If you base the minority of the population which subscribes to such a station, any atheist internet radio show would not qualify as "notable". I would say that endoresements by people like Richard Carrier, Sam Harris, and Brian Flemming would be enough to consider them notable. The Rational Response Squad carried out a "War on Easter" last year, distributing copies of The God Who Wasn't There, an atheist dvd exposing reasons christ couldn't have existed, all across the nation through various members. Their genesis of this event alone qualifies them as notable, and the article is definitely encyclopedic. --Cbenard 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User's first edit in seven months, thirteen total edits. -- Donald Albury 18:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Various reasons to keep this include, and are not limited to, many hits on google and other sites, hundreds of thousands of listeners weekly, thousands upon thousands of myspace friends, and an intruiging yet thought provoking glimpse into Atheist America. To delete this, we must also delete Sean Hannity and his radio show, as well as Rush Limbaugh. Deleting this is like deleting the Bill of Rights.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.43.90 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Following what Cbenard said, the "War on Easter" was talked about on Fox News XM and Sirius Radio. "RRS" has about 20,000 friends on their myspace account, and they don't use "myspace as their homepage" as another person said. Their site is RationalResponders.com which is a thriving community. Furthermore the Alexa rankings for the site are innaccurate, as Alexa often is. The site seems to not be registering traffic since they changed their site, as you can see they used to be much much higher in Alexa rankings but for some reason in a time period when they are experiencing more traffic, Alexa says their experiencing less. On their website you can note their traffic fluctuates from 200-1000 visitiors at any given time. --Infidelaholic 16:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This appears to be a single purpose account; 17 out of 19 total edits have been to the article Rational Response Squad, its talk page and this deletion discussion. -- Donald Albury 18:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The RRS is one of my most visited pages. They make an argument that is growing exponentially across this nation and world. Its points are phenominal, and logical, and worth pondering. As an Atheist, they give me a voice towards the "Christian" world that now "Believes" it controls this country. I was not aware of Wikipedia being a practicer of Censorship!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.50.10 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. As a Christian I feel its good to have the point of views of both sides, not matter how extreme. It makes for good discussion and debate. (why was this comment deleted and replaced with "keep?")
• Keep."....anyone who wants to verify our page can take a few minutes to research. Another charge is that we use myspace as a homepage, however RationalResponders.com is our website which gets 30 new members per day and represents the largest growing atheist community in the world..." I believe that right there is a good enough reason to keep. It's a rather large & fast growing network and will continue to do so. They are reliable for real information & radio shows, they always keep everything up to date, and they are just a great orginization overall, which makes me proud to be a member of it. Even if they do happen to get a bad rating from alexa.com or wherever else, they're relatively new, and need time to cut into a groove and learn & form themselves entirely. For an orginization that's as new as they are, they're doing incredibly well & better than most groups would at their stage of development. --LacunaSerenity, member of the RationalResponders.com.
  • Comment User's first edit. -- Donald Albury 18:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that the RRS needs to replace the self-promotional marketing text with a simple, factual representation of who and what they are. There're a legitimate topic for a wiki article, it just shouldn't be a mouthpiece.
• Keep It seems the first few delete votes were vandalized and changed by the following address: 68.232.151.145 Also Alexa doesn't work, it relies on unintelligent computer users to keep a spam toolbar on the browser. RRS asks people to switch to firefox, and many users with firefox don't have the bar. --Infidelaholic 17:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User's second vote. -- Donald Albury 18:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete. I suggest that anonymous "keep" votes be taken with a pinch of salt. There're now mobilising their MySpace drone army to vote here with several bulletins. Niall Jackson 17:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC) (Yes, I apologise about forgetting my name first time. :D)
• Keep. The myspace "drone army" represents verifiability. However, anonymous votes are always taken with a grain of salt, including yours.Infidelaholic 17:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User's third vote. -- Donald Albury 18:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Frenkmelk 17:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Several of the 'delete' comments appear to be an expression of negative bias. I suggest simply editing their entry to make it conform to the site rules, and leave it at that. - User:Hanniballecturer 13:37, 15, October 2006
  • Comment This user's first edit. -- Donald Albury 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.Livecontra 17:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC) RRS Is a a lugit. article, but needs to be cleaned up quite a bit. Deleating it is not going to help anything.
  • Comment This user's third edit. -- Donald Albury 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is nothing self-promotional about this article. I DARE any of you to find something that is. You can't. It is purely factual. The "HamuROOKis" list is defined and explained. All data is clearly and obviously verifiable, their website is right there, and anyone who took half a second to look would realise that. It would seem this entire "argument" is forged purely on bigotry. And you're right, this shouldn't be a vote. Just because most people are bigots, doesn't mean this find article should be deleted. Solar II 10:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This appears to be a single purpose account; 21 out of 27 total edits have been to the article Rational Response Squad, its talk page, and this deletion discussion. -- Donald Albury 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, They are opening a valid debate. Okay, so they're a little hardlined, perhaps evern rambunctious about it, but it is legitimate.
• Keep. If you need verification for anything just visit their site...
• Keep.The only reason this page is considered for deletion is that fundie pastors don't want anyone jeparodizing their cash flows. Educate the public with liberating reality, and their congregations shink.18:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)~
• Keep. There is no reason to delete this page as much there is a reason to delete for any organization, company, or belief.
• Keep The minority of people who list delete give crap reasons, and seem biased. --68.46.79.43 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Closing this page will do more damage than letting it exist. There is no reason to close it.
• Delete.. Not encyclopedic. The Land 18:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Now, all the IP voters and anonymous voters above, if you think your vote is going to count, you are all very wrong. This article is nothing but non-notable and spam. Michaelas10 (T|C) 18:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ---74.117.48.11 18:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is information someone might want to find. The group is legit and the people asking for delition are just threatened, but that is no cause for delete

Keep This is just for a difference in opinion, people may want to know about this and other peoples opinion is no reason for deletion

• Keep ---67.87.25.91 18:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC) they are allowed to keep their opinion open and to share it with others.
• Keep ---62.136.156.247 18:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC) pshah, london, uk
• Keep --- First Amendment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.224.117 (talk • contribs)
• Keep ---70.174.170.164 18:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There is not a reason to delete their page. It is a good page with valuable information on a well known internet organization. How much deletion would occur on wiki if this were to go? What is next? --Sleepr 18:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. Misza13 18:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Self-promotional drivel. Also, I'll thank the anon-a-voters to not put words into the mouths of others; nobody feels 'threatened' or is voting for deletion because they're a 'bigot', or anything else of the sort. This article is simply non-encyclopedic promotion that has no place in Wikipedia, as others have pointed out above. →DancingPenguin 18:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. Non encyclopdic. Advertising. IrishGuy ^talk 18:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (after 3 edit conflicts), nothing notable about this, as evidenced by the MySpace links being so prominent. The article reads as spam and is unencyclopedic.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. ---66.74.189.246 18:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -Deletion for notability reasons doesn't pertain to this article. The group that the article describes is cross-referenced in a multitude of places on the internet. Searching for the term, "rational response" (sans quotes) on Google gives 18M+ results, and at the top of that list is the "Rational Response Squad." That said, I am not too humble to admit that there seems to be a neutrality issue with the article. However, deletion of the article based on that is silly. The article needs to be revised, not deleted. ---Dumpy Dooby 19:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Clean, not kill. PandaKnight 19:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This organization exists, is notable, is active and has an effect on society and culture. There is information to be retained and catalogued about such an organization. I have been under the impression that Wikipedia exists to catalogue, in an encylopedic fashion, the entirety of human knowledge and experience. I see NO reason to delete this entry simply because a few seem to think that it is unnecessary. What is unnecessary to some is invaluable to others.-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=- 19:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Moloth

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.