QUOTE
Wikigroaning
Wikigroaning (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Neologism, only weeks old; needs at least merge and redirect... but to where?
Delete - Seems to be spam for the site of the same name. --BenBurch 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Strong Keep -- read the article, and then the accompanying articles from the WSJ, the Guardian, the Toronto Globe & Mail. It ain't about the website, it's about US. And they're right. This time, voting to delete won't make it go away Mandsford 03:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Keep -- My God! How dare they besmirch our beloved Wikipedia with these slanderous yet wholly accurate criticisms! When the Great Asperger's Council rules mankind in 100 years time, I shall scoff from my mighty hoverbike at those fools who thought that we should be writing more about the tangible universe and less about Transformers and furries. Because they will have been wrong![citation needed] Then we shall see the heights that humanity can reach when it has a full and comprehensive 20,000+ word profile of every anime character in the universe! --FuegoFish 03:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Keep Though a fairly new concept, its gainning strenght as one of the most shameful aspects of wikipedia (and one that we know perhaps TOO well), deleting the article seems like censorship more than anything else.
* Keep - look like a notable term, and has some good sources. The game makes me sad, because it doesn't count sub-pages, or linked articles that fork section
--Haemo 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Keep - term is notable with good sources but it is not good thing for Wikipedia. --Hdt83 Chat 05:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* For now, keep. Needs to be better developed. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* keep this article, it has become a well known term and since it is a concept you cannot delete it on the grounds that it could be offensive to wikipedia --Getalifebud 08:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Keep Wikipedia does have a 'bias toward things that don't matter'. The task is to write better articles about serious things, not suppress that fact. The term has taken off in the media because it's true. Nick mallory 09:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Keep - verifiable sources; time limit does not impact on notability Think outside the box 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Keep as per FuegoFish. east.718 09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Haha. Keep --HanzoHattori 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikigroaning (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Neologism, only weeks old; needs at least merge and redirect... but to where?
Delete - Seems to be spam for the site of the same name. --BenBurch 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Strong Keep -- read the article, and then the accompanying articles from the WSJ, the Guardian, the Toronto Globe & Mail. It ain't about the website, it's about US. And they're right. This time, voting to delete won't make it go away Mandsford 03:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Keep -- My God! How dare they besmirch our beloved Wikipedia with these slanderous yet wholly accurate criticisms! When the Great Asperger's Council rules mankind in 100 years time, I shall scoff from my mighty hoverbike at those fools who thought that we should be writing more about the tangible universe and less about Transformers and furries. Because they will have been wrong![citation needed] Then we shall see the heights that humanity can reach when it has a full and comprehensive 20,000+ word profile of every anime character in the universe! --FuegoFish 03:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Keep Though a fairly new concept, its gainning strenght as one of the most shameful aspects of wikipedia (and one that we know perhaps TOO well), deleting the article seems like censorship more than anything else.
* Keep - look like a notable term, and has some good sources. The game makes me sad, because it doesn't count sub-pages, or linked articles that fork section
--Haemo 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)* Keep - term is notable with good sources but it is not good thing for Wikipedia. --Hdt83 Chat 05:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* For now, keep. Needs to be better developed. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* keep this article, it has become a well known term and since it is a concept you cannot delete it on the grounds that it could be offensive to wikipedia --Getalifebud 08:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Keep Wikipedia does have a 'bias toward things that don't matter'. The task is to write better articles about serious things, not suppress that fact. The term has taken off in the media because it's true. Nick mallory 09:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Keep - verifiable sources; time limit does not impact on notability Think outside the box 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Keep as per FuegoFish. east.718 09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
* Haha. Keep --HanzoHattori 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Even wikidiots can recognize reality occasionally.