Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-35030550-20190423014734/@comment-5218827-20190423165200

Then Tupka, shouldn't there be a rule stating outright that no content that could affect advertising revenue be hosted? That's how I'd go about it. Then whenever a violator is spotted, they can be informed that they broke this rule and then everyone is happy I guess.

SerbianFoamer wrote: criticism dose not need to be constructive. If thats the case ,explain to me why theres a wiki that supports PeTA and a domestic terrorist group, a wiki that shoves political opinions down peioples throats. not only that, but the person who requested to delete crappy games wiki had promoted rationalwiki in the past, and had posted something to get goballed.

i can not beleive you are willing to support corrupt adminship, smh. Fandom should be non profit. Out of curiosity, what is this "domestic terrorist group" you speak of? I have a couple names in mind but I can't be bothered to see if they have their own Wikis. And Rationalwiki? Oof. Though once again I state that I care not for the CG Wiki, I think might have a glimmer on why it may have been deleted. I'm going to guess that one or two 2014 releases (one was text-based) that were undeniable commercial failures and were followed by seas of controversy were featured on the Wiki, and evidently the RW alumnus disagreed with their inclusion. And because RW are part of the greater SomethingAwful cabal that seems hellbent on policing the internet (it's working since they already control hefty chunks of Wikipedia, Youtube, Reddit, and other social networks), it didn't take much for Fandom to buckle under the pressure. That's my conjecture anyway, since I have no evidence in front of me. It's just an inkling.