There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Snark
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Category:Snark | Result: Delete[edit]
Delete[edit]
- Obsolete as all of our articles meant to have snark. Christopher (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- ClickerClock (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Castaigne2 (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- As above. —Kazitor, pending 11:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- The very definition of 'superfluous'. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep[edit]
Merge/redirect[edit]
Goat[edit]
Could this category be redefined instead? It seems like it lists articles that are mainly about snark, which includes articles on parodies or Funspace, which is all snark. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- That could work, I'd support that. Christopher (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'd support that too Vorarchivist (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Nope nope nope. That would imply that people would read about the category before slapping it on every page they see. Existence = misuse. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry @FuzzyCatPotato but I support it.--Rimuru Tempest (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Fuzzy, I'd check through it regularly and clear out any articles not about snark, the problem is whether we have enough snark related articles to warrant a category. Christopher (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry @FuzzyCatPotato but I support it.--Rimuru Tempest (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Nope nope nope. That would imply that people would read about the category before slapping it on every page they see. Existence = misuse. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'd support that too Vorarchivist (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)