Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subvertising
because voting is polarising.  I will say '''no confidence''' instead.  The relevant policy is, of course,  since it is not a neologism.  It is essentially an expanded dicdef with examples.  Why not mention it in context in an article like advertising or propaganda?  One or two sentences in another article would take care of this.  Oh, ynth probably applies as well.  This is the kind of stuff that Wikipedia does poorly and Encyclopedia Dramatica and its spinoff WhatPort80 and its ilk like "Know Your Meme" do better. Personally, the article annoys me, because I feel like I'm being manipulated, which I resent, and it gives me a headache.  OAPBOX probably applies too.   Here's the bottom line:  I would never recommend that anyone read this article to get info on the topic, and I wouldn't mind it being deleted because nothing of value would be lost.  However, if it is going to wreak havoc on other articles because crestfallen writers of this one want to add the material to them, let it stand.  This is the kind of stuff that makes me lose faith in humanity.  Can't a reasonable, thinking person recognize "subvertising" for what it is?  Perhaps giving it a name and codifying it here defeat the whole purpose of it
— User:PBF1974, 14:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:WINAD||WP:S||WP:SOAPBOX (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)