RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Fun:Michelle Obama's arms
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Fun:Michelle Obama's arms | Result: Keep[edit]
Delete[edit]
- Not at all notable.It's an outdated page. BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep[edit]
- It's funspace. Doesn't need to be notable. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah but it's not even funny. Plus the funspace should AT LEAST be a tiny bit notable or we should have the right to make any sort of crap under the funspace. BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Funny is subjective. I find that this one tickles my humeur nerves quite pleasurably. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Knight Commander What about my second comment? funspace should AT LEAST be a tiny bit notable or we should have the right to make any sort of crap under the funspace. BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's notable insofar as ridiculing the bias of conservative media. Fox News and other idiots were making huge noise about Michelle Obama revealing her arms back in the day. This article is here to ridicule that.
- I'm also as a rule staunchly against deleting funspace stuff. Unless it's extremely offensive, which this is not. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Knight Commander So is allowed to be funspace and what SHOULDN'T be funspace? BeardOfZeus (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- I can't quite comprehend that sentence of yours unfortunately. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 01:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Knight Commander Sorry for my bad Engleesh. So what should be allowed to be in funspace and what SHOULDN'T be allowed in funspace? BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Basically anything that isn't as offensive as to violate the community standards or just pure trolling. People have disagreed with this policy of mine before, but it's my policy and I stand with it.
- Regardless, you're losing this fight by a landslide. Even if you'd convince me here after titanic effort, you'd be unlikely to reach a majority by solely concentrating on convincing me. I recommend you find a different approach.
- And stop pinging me please. That's annoying me and causing a knee jerk reaction in me to disagree with you even more so. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Knight Commander Sorry mate for sounding rude, you have the right to your opinion. I will give it up trying to delete fun space pages for now. This will be the last time I will ping you, just want you to see my apology. BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see these edits the same way as you allegedly see mine (without me pinging you). By checking recent edits and clicking on the articles/talkpages. That said, I accept your apology. Godspeed and happy editing! Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Knight Commander Sorry mate for sounding rude, you have the right to your opinion. I will give it up trying to delete fun space pages for now. This will be the last time I will ping you, just want you to see my apology. BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Knight Commander Sorry for my bad Engleesh. So what should be allowed to be in funspace and what SHOULDN'T be allowed in funspace? BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I can't quite comprehend that sentence of yours unfortunately. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 01:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Knight Commander So is allowed to be funspace and what SHOULDN'T be funspace? BeardOfZeus (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Knight Commander What about my second comment? funspace should AT LEAST be a tiny bit notable or we should have the right to make any sort of crap under the funspace. BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Funny is subjective. I find that this one tickles my humeur nerves quite pleasurably. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah but it's not even funny. Plus the funspace should AT LEAST be a tiny bit notable or we should have the right to make any sort of crap under the funspace. BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- -Flandres (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, but promote it to lose it's bronze. It doesn't deserve it. Andrew5 (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- No objection to promoting. I don't think any funspace articles should have brainstars. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- This parodies the "Michelle Obama manufactured sleeveless dress 'controversy'" of 2009. This article IMHO's a bit amusing if you were there, as Obama's bare arms got a ridiculous amount of media coverage for a short period of time. Some sample articles from that time for your reference: [1][2][3][4][5][6] Note that "bare arms" was not as controversial as the articles made it appeared, IMHO. Sure, the "Thanks Obama!" crowd typing green ink in the online newspaper commentary sections hated the sleeveless dress for various manufactured reasons. It probably wasn't quite as known at the time that due to reasons the Obamas would be hated on by this lot for practically everything. Nobody on the other side cared. This shares some "manufactured controversy" elements ala Obama citizenship denial, flag lapels, and attempts to make Dijon mustard and arugula lettuce "elite" for some reason. I do agree with promoting away from bronze, though. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Funspace that mocks the obsessive weirdos on social media. Pretty appropriate for RationalWiki. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 00:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC) - Plutocow (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- If the republicans get to be upset over Obama's tan suit, Michelle Obama's arms are a fun sideshow. It's funspace, get a funny bone. -- Techpriest (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. It's not mocking her, as noted above. Kntai (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
