Talk:Really cool rich people

Not cool. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This makes an Ed stub look positively useful. - π 07:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hot, then? Pi, your joke is getting old. I ask, who is that crazy guy in a motorcycle jacket? His dad owned a giant magazine empire. ħuman 07:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a joke. Some of the articles you have created recently have had an Edish quality to them. - π 07:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, whine. ħuman 07:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on. The one that was a single quote about a TV show you just saw couldn't have been more Ed if you tried. At least the Iron Age stub had a joke. - π 07:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you continue to compare me to smeg Ed, I will bring you before the Leary Jellybeans for slander, my friend! ħuman 07:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete

I see no section or argument. These people are really cool, and rich. ħuman 07:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What makes them really cool, other than being rich? & What does it have to do with the site missions? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Lets see. 1) Not mission relevant. 2) No incoming links, or a wanted page. 3) Out of the three people listed only one has an article the rest are redlinks meaning the creation of three more possible non-mission articles. - π 07:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

4) Could be replaced with a category. - π 07:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

They are on mission because they donate millions of dollars to our cause. Just not to us :( ħuman 07:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesnt make any sense to me.. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Though if we had a Really Cool Moderately Well Off People article that I could add myself to I'd be happy..... Aceⁱ⁹ 07:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Still, this article contains all the information of category. - π 07:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Pi on this being off mission as an article and better off as a category (if it must be kept at all). Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

BILL FUCKING GATES??????? Totnesmartin (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill did not write your broken operating system. He just built the company that did. I used to hate him, too, until W XP. ħuman 07:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Vote

• Delete - π 09:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Aceⁱ⁹ 10:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep bitches. What have any of you added recently? ħuman 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep (conditional on Human getting the article to more than just a list of seemingly unrelated people) . Lets give him a day or two to sort out what he wants to write. --Damo^Hi 07:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So, I don't even get a chance to improve it and say why these people are cool? And the deletion process only takes one day? ħuman 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A good start would be to explain how the page is even close to the mission statement. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A better start to deletion would have been to give me time to answer that question. These are really rich fucks who put some of there wealth towards " 1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. 2. Analyzing and refuting crank ideas. 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. " One or some of the above. I may be wrong, but I think these people qualify. Shouldn't be a category because they don't all deserve their own articles. Of course, if they do, it could be. ħuman 06:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The article title is completely foolish and unwieldly. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Damo. And if I fail to suck seed, I understand deletion. But give me a freaking week like they do at WP, at least? @ Ace, so maybe it needs a better title down the road, so it will be linked to? ħuman 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)