Talk:Pet peeve

My peeve
My pet peeve is people leaving their pet peeves on this talk page. --- This must be some kind of joke... Some of this content should definitely be deleted! Like the section on cell phones, just ridiculous... --thomas9987 17:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

None of this is cited to a source and, by its nature, is very difficult to verify; furthermore I am not sure this article is served by listing the pet peeves of Wikipedians, which so far seem to be the only source for its contents. Therefore I have removed the list. &mdash;No-One Jones 03:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's remove this now. It's not really more encyclopedic than "things I don't like very much". DJ Clayworth 18:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added the origin of the word - the only "encyclopedic" thing about this entry... The list does not belong here. slaman 22 October 2005

Totally unencyclopedic
The giant list presented here is utterly unencyclopedic. Either it needs references, or it ought to be removed. Generally, we don't need people adding their favorite pet peeves. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed for now--warning was given a half-year ago, see above. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you for removing the list. However, I must confess I kind of liked it.  Personally, I think it would be OK for notable pet peeves to be listed, provided they are referenced and given some kind of cultural context.  (For example, famous people's famous pet peeves, pet peeves of well-known fictional characters, etc.)  What this shouldn't be is just a list of particular people's particular pet peeves.   dbtfz talk 04:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The bare minimum requirement is reputable sourcing, beyond that can be discussed as it comes. None of the deleted content was useful, though, IMO. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I got some spam posting to my User page to come "support the examples of Pet peeves you helped create". I didn't "help create" anything, I corrected the incorrect lack of hyphenation in name of a motorcycle manufacturer (a correction I had to re-apply for some reason here on the talk page).  That's all.  I think the list should be deleted.  It's the stuff of low-rent blogs.boinger 14:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

List deletion
The list has been deleted (again) per policies described at What Wikipedia is not: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Careless Deletion
I would like to put this issue to rest. Since this article was created a few users have written on the talk page that they do not like the list, and then promptly delete it. These actions ignore the contributions of dozens of other Wikipedians []. It has been stated that it violates the policies described at What Wikipedia is not. I have read the policies, and it does not violate them.

I watch this article, along with others, and when someone indiscriminately deletes much of the content without having engaged in discussion, I have reverted it back. Certainly there are a few who do not like the listing. This does not provide them the right to indiscriminately delete. There are far more users who have contributed to the article, but have not participated on the talk page.

I prefer Wikipedians to focus on adding to the content of Wikipedia rather than deletion of the work of many others. Please be considerate of others and give the deletionism a rest. PoolGuy 18:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * More importantly, the list violates the core policies WP:V and WP:NOR. This was pointed out about six months ago and remains uncorrected, indeed since then the problem just expanded. If you want to bring the material into line with those policies, then give it a try, but until then there seems to be a substantial consensus that the material is unsuitable. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the removed content has been pasted into List of Pet peeves. android  79  05:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikitionary?
Shouldn't this be moved to wikitionary (or at least have a link to the term there)? - IstvanWolf 14:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This whole page should be removed
The entire article is biased and unencyclopedic and should be locked from future edits. —This unsigned comment was added by 67.167.222.177 (talk • contribs).
 * What particular problems do you think have to be rectified. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete This Article
This article has been around for almost 20 years, and is still rated “start class”. Even that rating is embellished. The article is not more informative than a standard dictionary. In fact, it is even more amateur. As far as importance goes, I clearly don’t see a reason for this subject to stand alone. It is a mainly humorous phrase, slightly outdated, that is not in itself important to be an article. I think that if I were new to Wikipedia and saw this article I would be turned away and thought this is a dubious source. 176.230.176.48 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)