- I've added WP:LARD as a redirect; I like your term also. THF (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I restored the moved comments which were moved 7 minutes after I prepared for this page to be elected for MfD. The admin who closed this MfD snowball keep after only 2 hours 55 minutes, nominated Antipuffery for deletion, and made improvements to this article. I think there needs to be balance in this article. I welcome more user comments about this moved content. Ikip (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- And the extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiAntipuffery agrees that that version of the paragraph does not belong in the article -- did you even notice that there was a compromise edit in place? Or that your edit munged the table of contents and made the essay incoherent? And given the fit you threw over WP:ANI denying that you were adding the material in, it is appalling that you would disregard the consensus to add the material in. THF (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say no one cares, but very few people care. You might want to cool down a little. If you simply must expend your prodigious energies, this essay is a waste of time since it will be read by very few editors, and your efforts to neutralize it will not advance your campaign to have WP:NOTE deleted and WP:PRESERVE elevated to pillar policy. Thank you for soliciting feedback. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest we both take Edgarde advice and cool down a little.
- I am sorry, what does that skewed last sentence have to do with this essay? Ikip (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- (For clarity's sake, I'm moving my comment back back to threaded hierarchy. I was having trouble figuring out whom Ikip was addressing in his pre-refactor reply. Per Talk page guidelines, try not to re-factor other editors' comments, especially if it might change their meaning—doing so tends to introduce unintended confusion, and often irks editors. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC))
- Ikip: thanks for replying. My suggestions are my own, without strict adherence to protocol. I anticipate you will assume the freedom to either take my advice or ignore it. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC))
I question the suitability including this theoretical permutation:
Conversely, but far less regularly, the opposite effect, antipuffery, may occur. This is normally manifested in removing relevant and encyclopedic information and/or its main factor of notability.
I don't think I have seen this used as a tactic to diminish an article's notability, and I doubt this is "normally manifested" so; anyway it would be covered under vandalism. Besides, anti-puffery would be removing puffery, trivial items purported to be important.
- On the same section, what is MfD is it: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion? Thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Bombardment – placement of a large number of references in an article in hopes that this will prevent it from ever getting deleted.
- Wikipedia:Wikipuffery – exaggerating the notability of article subjects to avoid deletion of the article
- User:Beeblebrox/Adding sources as a tactical maneuver – adding inconsequential sources to win a deletion discussion
- This may sound cruel to the people who have worked so diligently on this policy. All policies are tough to construct and maintain. But I thought that the link "WP:PUFF" would better direct to WP:WTW which seems to contain a more comprehensive list of puffery words, with this policy being a fork of that one. Just my opinion. Student7 (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (words to watch)#WP:PUFFERY. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)