Talk:Don Cherry

Do we even need this? Do we really need to go after every right winger who says something we are against? Vote to delete--Thanatos (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. He's not even normally a pundit. He's just a hockey guy with a big mouth who doesn't know how to dress himself. --Kels (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Name me a hockey guy with a bigger political mouth. He's on one of the most popular TV shows in Canada, was voted on the CBC as one of the greatest Canadians. He likely didn't get an Order of Canada due to his views. His rant at the inaguration ceremony was for a politician who got the most Canadian votes in history. Want to count him out? Go on ahead, just name me 5 Canadian rightists who are more influential. I wouldn't be surprised if he is known by more Canadians than +80% of the people here Category:Right-wing activistsCivic Cat (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Explain that and his views in the article. As is, my finger is floating around the vaporize button. BTW, Kels and I are both Canadian.--Thanatos (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Canadian, and not terribly interested in hockey. So other than seeing him embarrass himself at that inaguration I don't really hear much about him. This might be relevant if you insist on making a page for him, though. --Kels (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanatos. Should I put in the bit that one shouldn't be surprised if he is known by more Canadians than +80% of the people here Category:Right-wing activists?  :-D.

and Kels, we now have two things in common. I too find hockey as boring as do many Americans find baseball and football boring.  :-D  

Okay, so you wanna vapourize the article. It's not like I haven't had an article here huffed. But hey, if you want a newbie like me to piss off and huff stubs before they have much of a chance to develope, go ahead. I'll look for better places to post--save me the trouble of defending against the RW clique.  :-/  Civic Cat (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Civic Cat. I'm sure you've read this which sets out the objectives for articles. If you think you can bring it up to this standard then that's great. Nevertheless, if there is a consensus for removing it, might I suggest (in such a case) that it be moved to the funspace so that Civic Cat can continue to work on it so that it can be brought back to the mainspace with honour when it is mainspace-worthy.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read it at least once. I don't remember it saying anything about using the fun page to develop an article. Let me guess, I should have Don Cherry in a user sub-page, and develop it until I can move it into an article page. Gee, I might as well just start my own site and just create a page about Don Cherry. Okay, I'll move it to a user sub-page were everyone can ignore it, until I flesh it out. Don't wanna bring down the standards here.  :-/  Civic Cat (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fun is used for many things. For stuff which is actually funny, for stuff which isn't up to scratch at the moment, for stuff which nobody kbows what to do with. But your userpage solution is very reasonable ass well. Good luck with the article.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There Thanatos, I vapourized my own article. Hope your happy.Civic Cat (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)