Talk:Credit Cards

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Delete

We don't need this. They aren't here a lot. Raiku 00:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

On one hand, we could theoretically make this a real page after turning it into "List of Credit Card Numbers" or something like that. Still, I'm perfectly fine with dropping it and almost deleted it without even letting the discussion pan out. --Jay (Talk) 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Not enugh numbers on the website. Raiku 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Though I think this might been a Spoons-type article, I think it can be legit. We have at least three sources: credit card, 4 branches, and Coach Z's 110%. But we should move this to "Credit Cards".
Not saying I don't think it should be Deleted. --75.5.176.233 00:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Only three sources isn't that big. Raiku 00:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Yet it only takes 3 times to constitute a running gag. Also, there's the Downloads easter egg. Strongkinghomsarsmith 00:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I can't believe I might actually be the cause of keeping this thing. Before I got edit conflict'd with Strongkinghomsarsmith, I was about to say, Jay approved a couple of articles that I haven't made yet, each having three sources (currently). --75.5.176.233 00:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This is seriously unneeded and needs to be deleted. No one really cares about reading all the card numbers in the H*R universe. MichaelXX2 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 22:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This should be deleted. There are a few credit cards in the H*R universe, but I just think that they are not major enough to be considered okay for an article. Besides, if anybody still wants this article, then they should actually add to it, not just leave it a blank page. *BOOM!*Kumquaticus*BOOM!* 16:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Kumquaticus
Does the fact I already wrote an article about Credit Card Fraud like, over a year ago render either article redundant? BBG 20:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
No, as that article documents a running gag and this one would be an item page. Heimstern Läufer 12:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

With a gallery this article might be worth keeping. Something like Postcards. 98.127.16.93 20:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If we can have articles with only one appearance like C'mon! It's Fog! (which was only completely in the screen for less than two seconds), this page should be considered for keep-age. I say keep. - Opus the Penguin 20:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, C'mon! It's Fog! is allowed to have its own articles because it has a sole, but very significant, appearance in one toon, and has the potential to make a second appearance in the future. We have decided it would not be practical or useful to lump all these one-time items onto one page, nor to not give these items their own articles. – The Chort 20:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that pretending to get past light-tech security is "significant", but that wasn't my point. My point was, this article has enough presence on the site to merit its own page: more so than C'mon! It's Fog! - Opus the Penguin 20:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I do wish not to argue over the merits of a completely unrelated article on this particular talk page. That article is about a minor object that makes one brief appearance. This article is about a number of references to, and appearances of, credit cards, which can make for potentially interesting information. A better comparison would have been with this article and Spam, (which also was TBD'd). With some more images, I'd see no harm in keeping this article. – The Chort 21:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just making a comparison and stating that this page, with multiple references, is credible. - Opus the Penguin 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

C'mon! It's Fog! is a different situation, as it's about a specific item. This page, by contrast, is a list of similar items. In this case, I think the use of these commonplace items is a bit too normal to sustain a good article with only three appearances (I don't think the 4 branches belongs on this article, since it's not an actual appearance of a credit card). At this point, I'd lean toward deletion. Heimstern Läufer 12:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We need more opinions here before we can close this discussion. — Defendarrrr1031Talk 11:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Add a Gallery of Credit Cards and I'm sold. Keep.The Chort 12:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm up to the challenge of a gallery, but I have to get to sleep now so I can do well on my math test. Gotta have an A or I'll chew myself out. MichaelXX2 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 01:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
All right, a gallery has been added. What does everyone think now? MichaelXX2 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 20:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That's what I'm talking about! It's great.The Chort 19:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, does anyone have any further opinions? MichaelXX2 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 16:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I think it should be kept. Enough appearances and verity. A link and backlink to Money would be a nice touch. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 05:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools