Talk:Truthiness/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Seriously?

Why is there an article about a comedian's gag-word that went staler than a week-old donut immediately after a US election that happened years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77Mike77 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I concur, this is a very twee article and shouldn't exist independent of Steve Colbert. 84.13.74.154 (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Try WP:AFD

The reason it's here is that WP:notability is considered permanent. If it was notable. it remains notable. Also the word continues in use afterwards. In some fields, such as software, the concept pre-dated Colbert but never had a good term for it. Once Colbert provided one, the label stuck and remains very much in use. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

That is an extremely lame defense. 77Mike77 (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if this whole article was a fake since I've never ever heard of it and from what I read it sounds totally bonkers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.26.37 (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It was a gag word used by a US TV comic named Colbert, and echoed by his fans for a while. It is no longer used by anyone outside of the Steven Colbert fan club, and how many worldwide English-speakers even know who Colbert is? Certainly not notable despite "references". The US mass media will of course mention one of their own, but that doesn't make it notable.77Mike77 (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please look at the end of the article for references. Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Introducing "Trumpiness" proves my point irrefutably. This "article" is partisan, regardless of "references"(sic) to card-carrying Democrat "sources"(sic). Wikipedians should be embarrassed by this laughably blatant violation of NPOV. You people are defending this with a straight face? Are you kidding me? 77Mike77 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)