Talk:Stacked Items

From Homestar Runner Wiki

This is the talk page of a deleted article. Please do not participate in the discussions archived here. If you can provide a reason for the existence of this page that hasn't been discussed below, you may start a new section. Please refer to the inclusion guidelines that are generally applied to judge an article's merit.

[edit] Needed?

Is this page really necessary? There are just two references. I'll put it in regular format, anyway. Thy Not Dennis (^t/_c) 13:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting Play Date.

Cold Reactive 14:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

~~True. That is three, but are they notable? Nuetral, but maybe keep. Change my mind DELETE'. --Jellote 14:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)~~ Ignore everthing I said and go to the bottom of the page.

Jellote, why do you make pages if you're going to question the necessity? Make sure the page is one that should be there before you make it. Thy Not Dennis (^t/_c) 15:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys serious? There are dozens, if not hundreds of instances of items being stacked (just search the word "stack"), but is it really worth making a list? I fail to see how this is a running gag. Delete Omnisweater 15:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to trot out the old cliche, but this seems like a spoon! situation. Stacked items are not terribly unusual and not notable. Delete wbwolf (t | ed) 15:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys are right. I never realized that before. Delete. Thy Not Dennis (^t/_c) 16:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I fail see how this is a running gag. If there was a particular item which kept getting stacked in different toons, that would be different, but here there's no link between any of these references. If this article is kept, we'd end up creating articles for every single verb that we could think of, and that's no use at all to the wiki. Delete. – T he C hort 17:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not make this page, by the way, Dennis. See my talk page if you wish to bring this up.--Jellote 22:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As it is now, I don't see much merit in the page, but it's original scope, that is, items stacked particularly high, may be on to something. (As it stands currently, the stack of aol online trial cds from isp would qualify) -128.103.10.135 19:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Unlike during the Philadelphia mass turbulence of 1947, objects stacked on top of each other just isn't notable here. --DorianGray 20:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I sense that a {{deletedtalk}} template is coming.. Delete.

OptimisticFool 20:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This really does have more than enough apearences, and is rather interesting. The stacks seem related by their size. I think that now that the page has been expanded it is not to be expended... Sorry you had to hear that... Anyway, fairly strong keep, but as a Recurring Theme and not a Running Gag.--Jellote wuz here 18:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Really?Stacked items?This is probably the most pointless article ever.One does not really need to know about stacked items.This is like HRWiki:Spoons.If you were to create a Wiki of the world,would you make an article about stacked items?This is a very boring concept,I think It should be DELETED!! Rondleman!