Talk:Non-normie.com

Take the test, post your scores
42.2% PFoster 21:55, 10 December 2008 (EST)

25.25%, or "You have signs of non-normieness (You are normal, but borderline) ". I love #43: "Do you either: Wear Birkenstocks? or...Regularly wear camouflage outfits?". That's an either/or, where's the "BOTH" answer? Birks are great for stalking deer y'know, and cammies are a good way to show your oneness with nature...or something. Secret Squirrel 22:42, 10 December 2008 (EST)

16%...should I be scared? Some of the "extremes" in the test are a bit telling. It's an extreme position, for instance, to think feminism hasn't accomplished all its goals, which doesn't sound terribly controversial to me. But then, I've been told that I'm sane. That may make the difference. --Kels 23:56, 10 December 2008 (EST)

14%...eek. Researcher 00:33, 11 December 2008 (EST)

great, I'm the craziest one here....PFoster 00:35, 11 December 2008 (EST)

delete?
Since this website has been down since January and is apparently down for good, and was fairly obscure to begin with, does keeping the article still serve any good purpose? Secret Squirrel 11:34, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * If, as the article asserts, the site was taken down after we criticised it (yeah, right), shouldn't the article stay? Although of course, there's no evidence it was us. Mr Correlation is not always at home to Mr Causation. Totnesmartin 11:43, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * That was, of course, snark on my part, not seriously meant to imply we had anything to do with it going down. Whois says the registration was about to run out anyway and I suspect Mr. Thompson got tired of his little project and moved on. Secret Squirrel 11:51, 8 March 2009 (EDT)


 * delete, it's just pointing to emptyness. I don't imagine we had anything to do with it.  11:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 *  Weak keep: Some of the questions were saved here]. Those could still be used as an example of what Jack Thompson (and probably 90% of the Conservapedia community) consider "normal". Forgot about Wayback machine, and the article is interesting despite the website being dead. 11:49, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * keep - the article is actually quite interesting, & this sort of site is worth documenting, even if it doesn't stay up. If it's no longer fit for mainspace, move it to essay. 11:49, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Did anyone get the Google cache or somesuch? 11:55, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.non-normie.com/ Secret Squirrel 11:57, 8 March 2009 (EDT)


 * I just skimmed it on my way here, but it looked reasonably interesting. And the web site might come back, you never know.  Anyway, it will "always" be on the wayback machine.  So I say we should keep it.  ħ uman  20:08, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Delete?
I'm creating a new section because the one above is from 2009. Given that its been down for more than a decade, is this article really necessary? Probably the easiest way to find the site's archive is via RationalWiki, and given that there are notability requirements at least for things like Youtube channels, this article seems like a viable candidate for deletion. It is more likely that somebody finds out about it from this website and starts believing in it than that somebody happens upon in accidentally and rejects it because of this article. 68.56.144.8 (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This won’t get much attention. If you want to say something should be deleted, add Reason for deletion at the top of the page and follow the instructions it gives you. I don’t think we should delete it just because it’s old and irrelevant, but the complete lack of sources and the slim chance of that ever changing is an issue. Christopher (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)