Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mew Glitch

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 of the debate was Merge and redirect to Mew (Pokémon). Deathphoenix 00:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mew Glitch

Wikipedia is not a FAQ repository! Melchoir 05:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• What did you consider FAQ? Cabby2 01:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Any article I would expect to find at gamefaqs.com, I do not expect to see on Wikipedia. Melchoir 02:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a game easter egg repository. Ruby 06:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by game easter egg? Cabby2 01:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It means a hidden feature that allows you to do something outside of the normal flow of the game. In this case the easter egg is a bug. Ruby 02:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikibooks. Ashibaka tock 21:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If this article can be saved by merging the article (or some of its contents) with another article, please do so. Cabby2 02:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please suggest a target, if you want to merge. Melchoir 02:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • How about merging it with the article about Mew (pokemon) Cabby2 23:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Mew (Pokémon) is fine with me. Melchoir 23:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. Merge into Mew (Pokémon). —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• If this article is chosen to be merged, can someone fix section 2 of it so that it is more organized? Cabby2 00:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, that section should just be lost altogether. Melchoir 04:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • For what reason(s)? Cabby2 19:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The list of numbers has no encyclopedic value; it is conceivably useful only as a how-to guide, and we don't do those. Melchoir 19:42, 30 January 2006 (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.