Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From VfD:

More categorizable trivia -- belongs on a single NeoPet page if at all. Kbh3rd 14:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. anthony (see warning) 16:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Anyone who wishes to put these single sentence (they're three, generally, but could as easily be one) "articles" into the List of Neopets would be fine, but these are not encyclopedic content. Geogre 16:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Why are they not encyclopedic? anthony (see warning) 16:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Too trivial. I'll agree that some equally trivial stuff has made it onto Wikipedia (can you say "Pokemon"?) but one error doesn't justify another. And my kids have NeoPet accounts! Delete, and/or add to "list of Neopets" - DavidWBrooks 19:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Trivial to you, perhaps, but I don't think we should be in the business of enforcing our ideas of what's important onto others. anthony (see warning) 19:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • No, it is his business, and your business, and our business to determine what's important. There are deletion guidelines, and I recommend that you read them again. I know that you believe there should be no deletes, Anthony, but you'll notice that the rest of us will come across things that we do not like, do not enjoy, do not believe are important, and yet obey the community consensus and vote according to deletion guidelines. If you do not agree with the deletion guidelines, then please do not vote. Instead, make policy proposals about scrapping the deletion guidelines, and please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Geogre 02:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It's our business to determine what's important? That sounds rather POV to me. How am I not voting according to the deletion guidelines? Please show me the guideline I am not following. anthony (see warning) 02:09, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not a matter of importance but one of use of resources. Individual Neopets are abyssmally insignificant IMO and mentions and descriptions of same would be better off in a single, comprehensive article. It would save us from a bunch of orphan articles and make it easier for anyone researching Neopets to find everything in one central nexus. They are encyclopedic. They just aren't so by themselves. I'm not even sure that redirects are called for but the information should be kept elsewhere. - Lucky 6.9 00:01, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with moving this information to a central location and redirecting, but VFD is not necessary to do that. anthony (see warning) 01:14, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent point, actually. Still, the VfD is a pretty busy place and if nothing else, it serves as a forum to decide where stuff like this should go. Lots of good has come out of these discussions. Personally, I've been avoiding this page because of flaring tempers (especially mine). Maybe what we need is a "votes for merger" page to decide what to do with potential orphans. - Lucky 6.9 03:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It seems that in a case like this there is no objection to merging the pages, so there's no need to vote at all. Just merge it if you want it merged. If there was objection, RfC is the place to go. That's your "votes for merger" page. Having a vote is what is wasting resources. anthony (see warning) 20:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Guanaco 02:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Better be more verbose, or you're going to be accused of trolling. anthony (see warning) 02:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Are Neopets the new Dartmouth? Ambi 04:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless redirect. Davodd 16:13, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Dittaeva 16:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -Joseph 18:04, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

end moved discussion