File :-(, x, )
ZOMG Anonymous
ZOMG

UN FUCKING BELIEVABLE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Futanari

Wikipedia has begun proceedings to delete it's Futanari article due to lack of notability and credible sources verifying it's existence!

These few fucking ops there WHO HAVENT EVEN HEARD OF IT have decided it is such a small and obscure phenomenon (if it REALLY exists) that it does not deserve an article at wikipedia! WTF

Go to it's deletion discussion page (the link I inserted above) and let them know what you think!

To post a reply to any of the points on the discussion page click on edit at the top and preface your reply immediately below the one you are replying to with "::" to offset it as you see others have done. Also, don't forget to sign your posts. Then review your edit if you want, and save your work to the page.

*shocked at these new heights of ignorance*
>> Anonymous
You relize that threads that are calling for invasion are against the rules and you will be banned for them?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>317359
While, with the nature of 4chan, it is quite possible that this will become a raid, this is more asking for everyone to protest against the deletion than a HAY GUYZ, LETS GO TO WIKIPEDIA AND HAMMER THE SHIT OUT OF THEIR SERVERS AND EDIT LL THE ARTICLES WITH BULLSHIT LULZ!!!
>> Anonymous
Cute.
>317359

I never said and never called for invasion, I said go tell them what you THINK. You were unsuccessfuly reading between the lines when there was no text there.

Alas, I cannot stop anyone from jumping to irrational conclusions.

Frankly I don't care what anyone thinks they read my thoughts as, you can do what you want.

Finally, if i was calling for some board-war shit would I had given instructions how to offset replies and reminded everyone to sign their posts?

Please, go make a valid point there and stop that lunacy.
>> Anonymous
remember it's not a vote. don't just say "keep" with a new account, give some reason.

the article is unlikely to be deleted given the discussion so far. the conditions for withdrawing the deletion request have been met but the originator of the request hasn't admitted his mistake yet.
>> Anonymous
>>317366
Dude, it doesn't matter how many people they get speaking against the deletion. Believe me, I used to be a regular editor. They've said flat out, deletion is not a democratic process. They give those in favor of the deletion and those agaisnt the deletion a chance to speak, but in the end it all comes down to what the admins think of the article.
>> Anonymous
>317369

so go bury your head in the sand?
>> Anonymous
i enjoy that they think it is valid grounds to delete something because it has no references... god forbid they be the first place something is documented.
>> Anonymous
>>317469
how else can you prove its existence without a verifiable 3rd party? Read wikipedias rules and realize that the articale will be deleted unless you can cite sources.
>> Anonymous
>>317511
Ok so what else is there as tons of futa clips, mangas, photos etc, all stating it as FUTANARI?
But regular wikipedia users have proven to be idiots in the past.
Now for example, why not delete this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tentacle_monster as well...along with all other fetishes? Its the same thing.
>> Anonymous
While I will agree that Wikipedia is stupid, I have to ask...

WHO BLOODY CARES? It's a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Either get lives or fap more.
>> Ande
It's dumb and stupid what they're doing, but even if they delete it, oh well, what is really lost? Most people know what it is, and those who don't, all they have to do is enter "hermaphrodite" or "futanari" in a google search engine and that serves just as well.

As>>317511stated there are no sources which may be the main reason. I glanced at the article, and while the stuff in it is valid, it has nothing backing up. It's kind of like this; imagine writting a paper for college. If you write anything it has to be more than just you're opinion. Maybe that's what they're goal is; they're trying to make it more academic.
>> Anonymous
wikipedia is basically screaming "SAUCE PLZ!!!1!1"

comply or die
>> Anonymous
They make it pretty clear. They're considering the article for deletion because it's basically a shitty article with little content and hardly any information/sources. They don't want the article to validate the subject's existence, they want the article to validate its own existence.
>> Anonymous
This smells less like ignorance or censorship and more like the work of the deletionists, an organized faction best described as a bunch of pussies who are too lazy to improve an article an would rather just see it tossed out the window. "Delete per nom" is one of their catchphrases.
>> Anonymous
>>317559
I put some academic sources in the discussion page, but I haven't integrated them into the article. I haven't the time for it now, but someone else can integrate those references. In any case, they should serve to quiet the "no sources" accusation as well as the "neologism" accusation. The term 'futanari' dates from the 12th century.
>> Anonymous
>>317602
I loled.
>> Anonymous
>>317681

There are academic sources on dickgirls?

...man, did I ever pick the wrong major
>> Anonymous
They did the same thing with the burning man article last year :(
>> Anonymous
I say we fuck Wikipedia, they're a bunch of a god damn losers who think they know everything.

Encyclopedia Dramatica > Wikipedia
>> Anonymous
Wikipedia is all about being open to edit while being moderated for content.

If there is something you do not like about an article, you go change it.

And that is all there is to that.

I myself have been deleting inappropriate Halo references that are out of place, incontradictory, or incomplete. I don't know who keeps doing it, but I know that I am there to remove it or improve it as need be.
>> Anonymous
Anyone know of any Futanari movies?
>> Anonymous
>>317770
Fuchs? Is that you? Or are you Joborn?

Fuck, I didn't think fellow Wiki editors even came to 4chan....
>> ChannelMaster
Thank God that "Shemale Art" article got zapped, at least. Quick, somebody add references to the damn Futanari article so it doesn't go too.