RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Fun:Zionism

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Fun:Zionism | Result: Userspaced[edit]

Fun:Zionism (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Poorly written, badly sourced, and not funny, all according to the creator of the page.


  1. As stated above. Also pushes an agenda that Zionism isn't so bad by mocking people who oppose it. Applesauce (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    If you think I am making fun of honest anti-Zionists and people undeserving of mockery, please point out where any such statement is made. Worzelpete (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  2. Concur with all of the above sentiments. Please write good fun articles. I'd love to see a version of this with good sources of crazy anti-Zionists behind every one of the claims. That would make it even more funny. Also, please could someone take me out of the vandal-bin? I haven't done anything bad and it's really annoying only being able to edit every 30 minutes and having to type in a stupid code every 30 minutes. PBfreespace (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    1. Given your history ... um, no. I'm not going to get involved in and/or be associated with your nonsense. I recommend taking it to your talk page so this topic isn't derailed.—CheeseburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. Concur. This article is not fun despite its namespace. Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  4. Both unnecessary and unfunny; appears to have been made by a sock of a resident concern troll.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  5. This page is poorly written and distasteful. AnonASP (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  6. Be funny and not just stupid. This reads like something from the bottom of the barrel at Uncyclopedia or the top of the barrel at ED. There could conceivably be a good article at this title, but no part of this will be it. - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  7. Subject is worth an article, but this should be moved to userspace until it's rewritten. Dark humor is fine, but it's awfully short and reads like it was written quickly and to fill space rather than as a quality article. B) talk 04:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  8. Fun articles = good. This != fun.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


  1. Meh, it's not great, but it could just as well use some work as a deletion. Also, let's all remember that a successful "delete" verdict is not a prohibition on re-making the article in a funnier way. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  2. I invite those who criticise the article to come and help make it funnier. I think it is funny in a dark humor kind of way, but humor is subjective. It certainly was not my intent (as some have insinuated) to insult or criticise anti-Zionists, except for those "anti-Zionists" who really believe in a global Jewish conspiracy controlling the world. Worzelpete (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    I did my bit above to vote for the greatest improvement that I thought could be made for it - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. Given my recent edits, many of the issues that people are voting on are outdated now.—CheeseburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 23:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  4. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
    nope, still poop - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  5. This user asserts the fact that the purpose of the fun namespace is to house humor articles, including but not limited to ones which are based on the law of poe. the article performs mockery of the front that is for the stated ideology.FAMAS (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)



  1. Before anybody deletes it, please move it to my userspace and/or notify me so I can do it myself, thanks. Worzelpete (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)