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 (and redirect to Neopets#Criticism). While consensus seems weak, it does point out that lack of reliable sources and neutral point of view are the biggest problems. If there are any notable controversies, they should ge into the main article. — Edokter • Talk • 16:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neopets controversy[edit]

This is a list of uncorroborated list of "controversies" - but reading through many of the examples aren't controversial at all and the sources given are internet forums and blogs. This page seems to exist solely to criticise Neopets. Despite many attempts at cleaning it up (see the article discussion page) it is still merely a list of gripes. B1atv 07:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are about two reliable sources in the entire article, and neither of them is a source for any "controversy". These are not notable criticisms. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Will not vote due to conflict of interest (I'm still waiting for the pound to open). I suggest that the article be renamed with a more applicable title: Criticisms of Neopets.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep per Lenticel. I thought I'd vote delete, but looking it over that seems the better way. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neurtral leaning towards keep and re-write I can see a merit in having an article about Neopets controversy. But the current state of the article would require a large re-write. Arendedwinter 14:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The difficulty here is that if you re-wrote it using only verifiable sources and removed all pov you wouldn't have anything left with to rewrite. B1atv 17:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep per Lenticel. Rob T Firefly 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete heavily POV - security flaws and percieved hypocrisy does not a controversy make. Will ^(talk) 16:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep per Lenticel. There are a lot of POV issues with the article, but there is useful information in there, particularly the chronology of dupe bugs etc. in the code. These are significant as they are examples of vulnerabilities and exploits in an MMORPG. Edgriebel 19:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, the "controversy" appears to be manufactured in my opinion. Burntsauce 22:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a controversy, a collection of criticisms in an article that is inherently POV.DGG (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep per Lenticel. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 23:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Neopets team has provided poor customer support over the years since the site's inception. Crticism should be emphasized in this article. 68.101.124.142 01:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we should delete this article and merge some criticism with the main Neopets or Neopets,Inc article. Hiya111 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. And wikipedia is not a consumer advocacy site. If the "controversies" become notable enough to be covered by reliable sources, then we would have an article. -- Whpq 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced; nn. Not every XYZ article gets a XYZ controveries or Criticism of XYZ riposte. If anything gets sourced merge with the main article. Carlossuarez46 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.