Talk:Ender's Game

Do we really need this for any reason? It really lacks goat... ħuman 21:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If it hadn't been created by an established user, I agree I probabally would have nuked it by now... Javasca₧ thinking of what to say next 21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If Jorge doesn't come up with some reason to keep, then I vote kill. KILL!!! --Kels 21:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Really!? I guess I'm confused as to what makes an article legitimate. It's a book that a lot of geeks read, that's the only reason. I'll gladly get rid of it if it appeases the mob. Jorge _{Radix Malorum Est Superbia} 21:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Jorge - you are running into the same problem I ran into a while back. As best I can figure, a lot of articles on RW that appear to be off-mission are here because articles on those same subjects were censored from Conservapedia as inappropriate for a "family-friendly" encyclopedia. All the human sexuality articles, for one, are way off mission but have historical reason for being here. I took this to mean anything on subjects relating to internet culture, geek humor and so on were fair game, especially if they were sufficiently snarky, and repeatedly got pissed off when they were deleted or moved to Fun:. I went back and forth on this: if one article doesn't belong what about all those other articles, why aren't they deleted too? OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments don't seem to carry any more weight here than on Wikipedia. Secret Squirrel 01:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

SS explains it well. ħuman 02:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is the article back, it is off mission? - π 03:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I redirected it to Orson Scott Card, where I copied all the content as a section. ħuman 05:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

On topic

What is on topic though is an article on Orson Scott Card. Ender's Game could be included their but with stuff like this he is worth discussing. 216.221.87.112 02:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should have that article. What it has to do with Ender's Game I don't know. ħuman 02:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. Human, did you bother to read the article you proposed for deletion? OSC wrote Ender's Game. Jorge _{Gave real $$ to support RW} 03:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did read it. However, I didn't memorize the author's name because I didn't care enough. It was an amusing article, but without a real reason to exist here. Thanks for telling me why the OSC article could incorporate a ref to EG, though. I'm keeping this tab open to see if I might figure out a way to get it started, or help out if someone else does. ħuman 03:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That OSC piece is... interesting. It's hard to tell what he is really trying to say, other than accusing "Darwinists" of having a "belief system", whoever they are and what it is. ħuman 03:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I stubbed up OSC. But really, it is a total stub and embarrassingly devoid of content. Jorge, would you care to fill it out a bit? ħuman 05:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'll have to work on this tomorrow, but I've done some OSC biographical stuff before. Being a Mormon, ID nutjob etc. and the ultra-weird alternate America history series Alvin Maker I think there's plenty. Sorry for getting testy, human. Jorge _{Gave real $$ to support RW} 05:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize. It's the nature of a collaborative project to throw information around and expect people to remember it ;) The end result is all that matters, and I think the OSC article has great promise. ħuman 07:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)