Talk:Rule 34

Deletion
I motion for this article to be deleted. It has no possible application to our mission statement. 23:07, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * We don't need a big long article full of furry pictures the way ED has, but Rule 34 is still pretty cool, and can troll Conservapedia pretty well. .mymyrteax 23:09, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * (EC) Deletion motion seconded. 23:09, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thirded. 23:12, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * Now hold on a moment...
 * Good grief! .mymyrteax 23:20, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * I can't believe this was deleted after such little discussion especially after such a reliable reference as xkcd was found. I demand it be restored. - User   23:30, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * Was that a joke?  23:32, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm waiting.  23:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * But Rule 34 is HOT! .mymyrteax 23:39, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * So's your mom. Can I write an article about her?   23:42, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * Sure. .mymyrteax 23:42, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * (EC2) It is irrelevant to our mission. 23:43, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * Wow no wonder you deleted it after only 17 minutes of discussion if two minutes is to long to wait for a reply. Why was it not on mission? We already have an article on mymyrteax' mum. - User   23:44, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * I deleted it after 17 minutes because three people (ListenerX, Toast, and myself) had agreed that it should be deleted. For a clearly irrelevant article created by a newcomer with almost no understanding of what RationalWiki is actually about, I felt that was plenty of discussion.  By the way, I waited twelve minutes for you to respond.   23:52, 26 February 2009 (EST)


 * I'm not Andy Schlafly but Schalfly lieks Mymyrteax too. .mymyrteax 23:46, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * I thought you were John? - User   23:48, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * No, not him but I'll add him to the people who liek Mymyrteax. .mymyrteax 23:49, 26 February 2009 (EST)

While I see no reason for this to be in the mainspace, we could move it to fun.  ħ uman  23:50, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * That is more like it, this site is growing rapidly somewhat. - User   23:52, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * Can you add the now-deleted mymyrteax article there too? .mymyrteax 23:51, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * Ideally, funspace articles should actually be entertaining. Neither "Mymyrteax" nor Rule 34 fit the bill.   23:55, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * This can be made entertaining very easily. CP keep want to sue us for libel, I say this is our chance. Bad idea. - User   23:57, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * Are you talking about Rule 34 or mymyrteax? .mymyrteax 23:58, 26 February 2009 (EST)
 * I was think Rule 34, then I remembered about that fake Ed Poor website and I have gone completely off the idea. - User   00:00, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * I fear they were talking about uploading Conservapedia-centric pornography.  00:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * To which there can be only one reply: YUCK! 00:07, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * This thing is still here?  ħ uman  00:10, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Unfortunately yes.  00:12, 27 February 2009 (EST)

button with edit
I agree with deleting this, unless we manage to find a way to expand it into an entire internet culture, I cannot see it contributing to what we are aiming to do. Even as a fun article it just... it isn't funny. I do agree with deleting this, unless we can figure how to expand it. {{jsig}]

(Gah! Edit conflict!)  Again, I propose that we delete this article. It has no relevance to any of our mission goals—it does not analyze and refute the anti-science movement, crank ideas, or explore fundamentalism or authoritarianism. The article is not even the slightest bit entertaining, so it doesn't belong in the funspace. It is, to be frank, a random stub about another 4chan meme. I would rather not house anything on the site so lacking in value without purpose. 00:23, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * I vaped this silliness.  ħ uman  23:30, 4 March 2009 (EST)