Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neopets species


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

List of neopets species

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable fictional subject. Individual neopets are definitely not notable; arguably, combining them into a list doesn't make them any more so. This article has no third-party references to demonstrate notability, and it's difficult to see how they could ever be provided. I suggest a Merge to Neopets. Robofish (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge to neopets.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, and then consider whether to Merge or develop into a suitable article or list. Obvious it is not acceptable as it is. Agreed individual neopets are almost never notable by themselves, but a list of them is not subject to that restriction. DGG (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy A list of all neopet species obviously would be too large to merge into the main article and since the current one isn't even close to finished it's not suitable to keep separated or merge it yet anyway. I think posting this was premature. (P.S. I have no opinion on notability of individual neopets, but I definitely think either linking to such a list in the main article or making one is good because it improves coverage of the game itself. - Mgm|(talk) 23:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator - I hadn't considered userfication, but that would also be an acceptable solution here. The current list is indeed not close to finished; I personally doubt an encyclopaedic list of Neopets can be written, but if someone wants to try, they should work on one in userspace until it's ready. Robofish (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with fire and holy water Not even really an article, hell it starts with "*rolls eyes*" and ends with "TO BE CONTINUED". I have a strong feeling that there's a decent List of Neopets article somewhere already too, and it there isn't it was probably deleted via AfD a while ago. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep... Articles for deletion/List of Neopets. So, speedy delete via G8 or whatever for recreating this. - 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norse Am Legend (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. List of non-notable fictional creatures. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G4) – recreation of deleted material via previous AFD discussion. Nothing has been addressed since previous AFD in terms of content or notability. MuZemike 03:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article seems fine to me if it gets cleaned up. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as wholly unreferenced. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreferenced, fails WP:NOTE. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 04:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Inmysolitude (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject of the article (the list itself) doesn't pass WP:N. The holistic approach to notability doesn't work in this case.  Them  From  Space  14:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that this is a beginning attempt at the reconstruction of a much longer article.DGG (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Neopets per the precedent in Age_of_empires_iii etc Jwray (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete like we did awhile back with hot wheels cars. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a logical subarticle, I'm especially disappointed at the interest in finding end runs around policies on consensus and instead delete, merge, rinse repeat. -- Banj e  b oi   07:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a subject that has recieved extensive coverage. Any fictional species from this game worthy of note (through the usual WP:V) should be included in Neopets. In-depth list would be more at home at a specific gaming wiki. Marasmusine (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Give it time to grow, and it can become quite a decent article. And with so many species, they wouldn't all fit on the main page, they just having to make a side article to hold it all, and then we'd be back here once again.    D r e a m Focus  18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G4 for recreation of deleted material per Articles for deletion/List of Neopets. Fails WP:NOT and has no significant coverage in reliable, THIRD party sources. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or Userfy I see no reason that a perfectly good article with nice solid facts be deleted. However, as per above, it has to be merged as a decision in the above AfD. Cheers.  I 'mperator 01:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment For those unfamiliar with the game, it has 42 species of creatable Neopets, 4-5 special ones (creatable only under certain circumstances), and some others that are not playable. None are particularly notable, nor do any give you anything special in the game, they are just chosen based on personal visual preference. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is this not simply a Speedy Delete CSD:G4 (original AfD)? Regardless, not in the slightest bit close to encyclopedic and the subject is adequately covered in the main article. Black Kite 11:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.