Talk:Wreckovation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do not delete this!!!!!!!!

There is no hoax with this item! It is a perfectly valid term that, as the article suggests, can easily be heard and read in many conservative Catholic circles to describe the banalization of Catholic Churches over the past 40 years. Please keep the article, as it serves a great purpose to inform those what is truly at stake with these deplorable modifications being made.

I agree. This article does need improvement, but it is an important term that needs an article StThomasMore 03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion / Vandalism

The edit of the date was in no way a form of vandalism but merely an attempt to delay deletion, which would provide us enough time to discuss this matter. As StThomasMore has already pointed out, there is no hoax, and this is a perfectly valid argument. Those who believe otherwise should not delete this article but should help to edit this page by adding in extra material by showing the opposing view.

When an IP-Address-user with effectively no edits comes in and changes the date on a prod, I consider that vandalism. Given that a user can remove a prod simply if they object there is no reason to alter the date and muck up the process. Kershner 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree with the view, but that no reputable sources have been provided proving that the article has any merit. This is especially true of the word itself, as the article seems centered around the word "Wreckovation" rather than the idea. See WP:V. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Consumed Crustacean, perhaps you could edit the text of article in order to make it more appropriate for your ideal article? I'm not sure how to best accomplish your suggestion of changing the article's focus to the idea rather than the word. After a certain point are they not one in the same? I'm willing to hear further suggestions and edit the article myself, but I'm relatively new to wikipedia (when it comes to editing articles), so please provide me with some help! IskoFranco | Talk

Still, I find it hard to force it to meet WP:V and WP:N. Blar, I might try to help the article out eventually, but can you find a decently reputable source for this? I'm reading it on some internet forums, but considering the guideline/policy/whatnot on internet memes the 800 Google results it gets aren't really enough. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added two sources and removed the prod tag. If someone else wants to pursue deletion, they can, but I don't particularily feel like it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see this article expanded into something useful. I believe, based on google research that the topic has merit, but that the term used to define the article is a neologism. As such a rename of the article would go a long way towards defining it's encyclopedic quality. I intend to submit this for AfD if it remains in its current state, but I'll give the article a week to come together as it appears to have merit. Kershner 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)