Talk:Babies
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Revision as of 15:46, 7 November 2007 by Defender1031 (Talk | contribs)
delete?
HRWiki:spoons and yes it is. — Defender1031*Talk 00:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Please specify why this is a spoon. user:haldoHaldo 00:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC) It's not a spoon, It's neither obscurly uncomon nor rediculously common.
Babies are very common. (sorry for the late reply, i didn't notice you had edit conflicted me) — Defender1031*Talk 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)- I think you're misunderstanding the message of the Spoons page, DeFender. Just because an object is common in the real world does not mean it can't have an article. If it is used in situations beyond what would be considered normal in real life (things like "my baby got stole", "wave o' babies", or "babies having babies"), than it may be deserving of a page. Right now I'm neutral on this article, though. — Has Matt? (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know that, and until you just said it, I didn't realize that they were used in any way other than normal, but now that i think about it... very very little girl... the baby from PQ, yeah, it is used in an unusual way... keep — Defender1031*Talk 21:12, November 6, 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if this is enough to warrent an article, then we should have "seniors", "cats", "dogs", etc. Babies just seems too general to warrent an article. The Goblin!!
03:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Don't be silly. Cats and dogs doesn't appear enough to warrant an article. Bears and prawns are. And for this article: Keep it for all the reasons above. Notablity by weirdity. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 06:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- We used to have "Cats", but it got deleted. We still have Dogs, though. --DorianGray 06:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Don't be silly. Cats and dogs doesn't appear enough to warrant an article. Bears and prawns are. And for this article: Keep it for all the reasons above. Notablity by weirdity. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 06:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if this is enough to warrent an article, then we should have "seniors", "cats", "dogs", etc. Babies just seems too general to warrent an article. The Goblin!!
- I know that, and until you just said it, I didn't realize that they were used in any way other than normal, but now that i think about it... very very little girl... the baby from PQ, yeah, it is used in an unusual way... keep — Defender1031*Talk 21:12, November 6, 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding the message of the Spoons page, DeFender. Just because an object is common in the real world does not mean it can't have an article. If it is used in situations beyond what would be considered normal in real life (things like "my baby got stole", "wave o' babies", or "babies having babies"), than it may be deserving of a page. Right now I'm neutral on this article, though. — Has Matt? (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
