Difference between revisions of "Talk:Anti-Flag"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(do not delete) |
HeartOfGold (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
The subject matter is hardly encyclopedic, and the use of the term "pro-choice" is highly suspect. This article seems to be counter-productive to the purposes of a conservative encyclopedia. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 00:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT) | The subject matter is hardly encyclopedic, and the use of the term "pro-choice" is highly suspect. This article seems to be counter-productive to the purposes of a conservative encyclopedia. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 00:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
:They're one of the most prolific (if not ''the'' most prolific) punk-rock bands ever. If any band is notable, it's them. I'm somewhat curious, HeartOfGold, what is your experience with listening to their music/researching their endeavors? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 00:15, 17 May 2007 (EDT) | :They're one of the most prolific (if not ''the'' most prolific) punk-rock bands ever. If any band is notable, it's them. I'm somewhat curious, HeartOfGold, what is your experience with listening to their music/researching their endeavors? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 00:15, 17 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::I do not doubt that they are prolific or notable. But why do they need to be on conservapedia? The article on wikipedia looks fine. | ||
| + | ::I will answer your question. I listened to one song, tonight, via youtube, after I learned the pro-abortion correction was reverted. I am not a punk rock fan, but I do listen to a wide variety of music. The article in question seems to be more of a fan entry that is counter productive to what I thought was the purpose of this site. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 00:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
They are active in political activism. If we're going to delete liberal subjects, then why don't we delete [[Al Gore]], [[John Kerry]], or [[Democratic Party]]? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:20, 17 May 2007 (EDT) | They are active in political activism. If we're going to delete liberal subjects, then why don't we delete [[Al Gore]], [[John Kerry]], or [[Democratic Party]]? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:20, 17 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :That is a good point. But this article is rather soft on what seems to be a liberal political activists group. E.g., adopting the liberial preferred "pro-choice." [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 00:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 04:29, May 17, 2007
I don't like the merge idea; there are plenty of bands with articles, and Anti-Flag is much more notable than many of them. --Hojimachongtalk 20:28, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Delete?
The subject matter is hardly encyclopedic, and the use of the term "pro-choice" is highly suspect. This article seems to be counter-productive to the purposes of a conservative encyclopedia. HeartOfGold 00:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
- They're one of the most prolific (if not the most prolific) punk-rock bands ever. If any band is notable, it's them. I'm somewhat curious, HeartOfGold, what is your experience with listening to their music/researching their endeavors? --Hojimachongtalk 00:15, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
- I do not doubt that they are prolific or notable. But why do they need to be on conservapedia? The article on wikipedia looks fine.
- I will answer your question. I listened to one song, tonight, via youtube, after I learned the pro-abortion correction was reverted. I am not a punk rock fan, but I do listen to a wide variety of music. The article in question seems to be more of a fan entry that is counter productive to what I thought was the purpose of this site. HeartOfGold 00:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
They are active in political activism. If we're going to delete liberal subjects, then why don't we delete Al Gore, John Kerry, or Democratic Party? DanH 00:20, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
- That is a good point. But this article is rather soft on what seems to be a liberal political activists group. E.g., adopting the liberial preferred "pro-choice." HeartOfGold 00:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)