Talk:.gop: Difference between revisions
Loupgarous (talk | contribs) mentioned http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dot-gop-domain-newest-and-one-funniest-internet-memes and asked for consensus on whether this is notable enough to mention in the article |
Dustin Loup (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dot-gop-domain-newest-and-one-funniest-internet-memes is a page on that soi-disant "progressive" organization's Web site which lampooned the RNC's selling .gop addresses. Is this notable enough to include in the article [[.gop]]? [[User:Loupgarous|Loupgarous]] ([[User talk:Loupgarous|talk]]) 16:18, 17 October 2016 (PDT) | http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dot-gop-domain-newest-and-one-funniest-internet-memes is a page on that soi-disant "progressive" organization's Web site which lampooned the RNC's selling .gop addresses. Is this notable enough to include in the article [[.gop]]? [[User:Loupgarous|Loupgarous]] ([[User talk:Loupgarous|talk]]) 16:18, 17 October 2016 (PDT) | ||
==Not notable enough to justify inclusion== | |||
Since this does not consider actual registrations, but rather an internet meme that effectively parodies the Republican party. I do not believe that it is newsorthy or notable enough to justify it's inclusion in the article, especially given the partisan nature of the article. Thanks for sharing though. [[User:Dustin Phillips|Dustin Phillips]] ([[User talk:Dustin Phillips|talk]]) 13:12, 23 October 2016 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 20:12, 23 October 2016
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dot-gop-domain-newest-and-one-funniest-internet-memes is a page on that soi-disant "progressive" organization's Web site which lampooned the RNC's selling .gop addresses. Is this notable enough to include in the article .gop? Loupgarous (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2016 (PDT)
Not notable enough to justify inclusion
Since this does not consider actual registrations, but rather an internet meme that effectively parodies the Republican party. I do not believe that it is newsorthy or notable enough to justify it's inclusion in the article, especially given the partisan nature of the article. Thanks for sharing though. Dustin Phillips (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2016 (PDT)