Talk:Collective Shout: Difference between revisions
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
:We appreciate your bringing this up in the talk page, as not many users wish to share their opinions on existing articles. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 16:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC) | :We appreciate your bringing this up in the talk page, as not many users wish to share their opinions on existing articles. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 16:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC) | ||
::I think part of the issue here is that, if we took such a definition of anti-consumer, there could be a lot of very conusmer-relevant things that we may not end up talking about, despite them being very relevant/important. I do think that this article has grown beyond where it needs to be, and might need to be pared back however. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 16:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC) | ::I think part of the issue here is that, if we took such a definition of anti-consumer, there could be a lot of very conusmer-relevant things that we may not end up talking about, despite them being very relevant/important. I do think that this article has grown beyond where it needs to be, and might need to be pared back however. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 16:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC) | ||
:::I may have misunderstood your point @[[User:DzLamme|DzLamme]] (thinking that you were arguing for the article's non-inclusion, rather than commenting on the use of the term 'anti-consumer'). in any case, I'll replace the deletion notice with a relevancy discussion notice, as i don't think there's a good reason for the article to be deleted in short order. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 16:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC) | |||