Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


Points of interest related to Lists on Wikipedia
Category - - Stubs - Deletions -

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to lists. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

  • adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
  • removing closed AFDs.
  • removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

  • tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|lists}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|lists}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.


==Lists==

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. (aeropagitica) 10:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] List of ROH World Tag Team Championship defenses

Useless trivia. RobJ1981 22:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. Kappa 23:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as useless listcruft. Title defenses are not notable. TJ Spyke 02:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete See above comment. Deputy Marshall 01:31, 31 August 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.


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. (aeropagitica) 10:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ROH Pure Championship defenses

Useless trivia RobJ1981

  • Delete, useless listcruft. TJ Spyke 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless and unmaintainable- merge relevant matches into the articles on the wrestlers involved. Friday (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per voters. Renosecond 00:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. More or less listcruft.Deputy Marshall 01:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Unless moved to another page this information is usefull.
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.


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. (aeropagitica) 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of dead characters from Sonic the Hedgehog

There are many other series that have for more dead characters, not only in video games, but also comic books, movies, TV series, anime, and countless other media forms, and none of them seem to have any kind of "list of dead characters from" articles. The status of a character's life, and whether or not he or she has died, can be addressed on an individual basis in that character's own article, the game's article, or wherever else information on that character appears. Matt S. 17:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Support per nom. Marc Shepherd 18:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - As an indiscriminant list. Wickethewok 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete having read the list, most of the "deaths" here are speculative or non-canonical. Example: "Sally Acorn was thought to be dead in the controversial Endgame series (issues #47-50), but turned out not to be, due to Sega of America refusing her death." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stupid.-Kmaguir1 22:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nintendude list. Danny Lilithborne 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- 9w6d 06:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, indiscriminate list of speculation. Various failures of WP:NOT. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to List of articles killed on Wikipedia. Kekeke. Delete. Dekimasu 07:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Game-list cruft. --Kunzite 12:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the above. In addition, it's also missing the most important fact of all, which is that Sonic himself died halfway through the fourth stage every single time I picked up a controller. — Haeleth Talk 16:23, 29 August 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.


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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series

I have been watching and maintaining the site since the last nomination of this article a year ago (with ended with no decision), but have to conclude that much of the information here contains a sustantial amount of WP:OR and opinion-based assumptions (regarding what vehicles they resemble). There is also the question of whether the list would be significant in Wikipedia in the long run. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 15:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC) ╫

  • Keep If you don't lie you musn't read it. But for many GTA-fans it's a great page for looking up certain vehicles. Look at all the pictures and the information. None-GTA-fans musn't read it but I think it's important to save this article. ProSieben 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete had it actually been a good reference page i would have voted to keep it, but it it merely a list of all the names thoughout the GTA series. It doesn't feature any other information (pictures, locations, usefull info). So, since it's just a list of car names, i say delete it. Xyzar 30 August, 2006 (19:31, GMT+1)
  • Delete - the problem with these game guides is that if they are not copyvio they are OR. It is hard for them to be anything else. This one is OR. I simply do not see the use to which it would be put. BlueValour 04:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful reference for a popular game. Lancsalot 13:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This has been pretty useful to answer simple questions about the vehicles. At least this page could be merged with the Grand Theft Auto main page on Wikipedia. User:kidclam 13:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverified original research. Only links are to a GTA wiki, which itself doesn't offer any reliable sources. ~ trialsanderrors 08:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, notable aspect of best-selling video game franchise. — CharlotteWebb 23:39, 5 September 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.


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. Punkmorten 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Erotic Internet Models

Non helpful list, consists almost entirely of people without articles on Wikipedia Nuttah68 15:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete few (if any) of those listed would pass an AfD. Also covered by Wikipedia Is NOT a Web Guide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mostly useless. Works better as a category. Rohirok 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is a case where a category is infinitely better than a list. This list is useless, and the vast majority of the people on it have no articles about them, and wouldn't be notable enough per WP:BIO/WP:PORN BIO to warrant any. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:49, 29 August 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.


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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of furniture companies

This is redundant with the category Category:Furniture manufacturers. This was previously prodded, but the prod was removed without explanation. -- Where 15:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:Lists are not redundant with categories, they serve a different purpose - article is certainly a stub, but that's a terrible criterion for deletion. WilyD 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per WillyD above - Blood red sandman 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, not redundant with the category unless you don't care which country a firm is based in. Kappa 16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per WillyD. --Edgelord 22:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Stange Keep per WillyD. Wikipedia is passingly strange. But where else can you find this kind of data? Williamborg (Bill) 02:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WilyD (ignore my edit summary). --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep though I do not like the thought of the linkspam that may follow! --Nigel (Talk) 12:40, 29 August 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.


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. (aeropagitica) 09:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ROH World Heavyweight Championship defenses

List of ROH World Heavyweight Championship defenses

  • Delete Useless fan cruft. TJ Spyke 20:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 23:30, 28 August 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.


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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civilization 4 encyclopedia

Recently created article; Seems like it's headed in the direction of some sort of game guide for Civ 4, which is not acceptable per WP:NOT. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT a game guide (despite the article author's protestations) and not a collection of internal links. The article is juts a set of links to articles unrelated to Civilization 4. Gwernol 07:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 07:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Gwernol. JIP | Talk 11:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - A3. --Daniel Olsen 13:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the author's trying to dodge the "game guide" deletion accusations, but isn't very successful, because despite what the author thinks, it still looks like a game guide. ColourBurst 14:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy as per Daniel Olsen. Consists of only links elsewhere. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This will either be a game guide or a directory, both of which fail WP:NOT. --Wafulz 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Duran 05:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete next we'll have List of grand theft auto cheats ReverendG 05:49, 29 August 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.
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 No consensus/default keep. Closure is mildly influenced by misuse of the word "infinitesimal." I believe the nominator meant "potentially infinite", which is usually expressed at AfD with word "unmaintainable". Xoloz 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about friendship

Dynamiclist, infinitesimal. (Actually, it has no encyclopædic value.) TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 23:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Aside from it not even making any sense in this context, being an infinitesimal is not a criterion for deletion. Neither is the fact that a list is "dynamic". Please base your rationales upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 00:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't imagine who would find this list useful. Aplomado talk 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Well, for instance me, else I would not have gotten onto this page ;-)
Besides, there is another reason to keep this. Take a look at this quote on the definition of music:
It is a direct expression of human emotions designed to manipulate and transform the emotion of the listener/listeners.
This is done to the combination of a song'a music and the lyrics, forming a theme (or 'mood').
Actually, most songs have social themes, like love, lust, hate and friendship.
And since all of the above is also studied on the Academic level, there are people who'd like to research on this. Or just read this list for fun.
Patrick1982 15:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (Me, me) Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The artivle looks well organized, well delineated and useful. :) Dlohcierekim 00:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete List cruft, pure and simple. Cain Mosni 00:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Songs about love anybody? Danny Lilithborne 02:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Specific list, not infinitesimal. Look at Category:Dynamic lists of songs will you? Andromeda 2006-08-30 02:36:27 (UTC)
  • Delete list of X with unassociated unencyclopedic value Y. MLA 09:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Whats its purpose? thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 11:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh... how oportune that you appear here... to vote for deletion. </sarcasm>--Andromeda 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Whats that suppose to mean? thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 12:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dlohcierekim. Good article Joe 20:44, 30 August 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.


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 Deleted by Vegaswikian. (aeropagitica) 13:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Song In The Multiple Genre Library

Article appears to be listcruft. Link in article leads to a section of iTunes that is for music downloaded from LimeWire (according to the article). Will be adding article to this AfD Wildthing61476 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Added Multiple Genre Library to this AfD. Wildthing61476 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. "The list continues to grow every day". User:Zoe|(talk) 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Zoe. IronDuke 17:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Zoe. wikipediatrix 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete what is this? Danny Lilithborne 02:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This was tagged for a speedy. It's still < 48. It's empty. :) Dlohcierekim 04:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment I put a speedy tag on it. :) Dlohcierekim 04:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete both. :) Dlohcierekim 04:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment List of The Song In The Multiple Genre Library has been speedied. I tagged the other one with {{db-empty}}. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:58, 30 August 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.


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 by consensus and response to keep advocates.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] List of fictional licence plate numbers

List serving no encyclopedic purpose. It is growing, but for the past month noone has addressed my question on the talk page about the purpose it serves. It does not fulfill any of the purposes at Wikipedia:List guideline#Purpose of lists. I believe it violates the WP:NOT rules against being an indiscriminate collection of information and against articles not being "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". GRBerry 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete it most certainly fails WP:NOT for being an indescriminate list. It'a just a pile of trivia. And as a list, it doesn' meet the purposes outlined in WP:LIST -- Whpq 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - This could very well be the most trivial list I've ever seen on Wikipedia... 0_o Wickethewok 17:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a long list. If a particular license plate is notable, it could be placed in the trivia section of the article it belongs. We don't need a list like this on Wikipedia.Trevor 18:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge - If you're really going to do away with this list... which is one of the coolest things I've seen on Wikipedia today... then at least be sure to place each license plate on the trivia section of each article about each piece of fiction referenced, so that the information is not lost. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No function, no patience for fictional categories--if it's fictional, it doesn't exist. Non-existent things are not as notable as existent things... ooh, what a generalization.-Kmaguir1 20:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know it's trivia. But it's a good list (that's my own criterion for being an article) and it doesn't try to convince you it's anything other than kruft. And it does publish it's criteria for being on the list: it has to be a number plate from a work of fiction. That is better than some lists around here which have unverifiable criteria for inclusion.Garrie 00:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
But using your own criteria for keeping or deleting isn't really valid. You need to apply the wikipedia criteria. -- Whpq 12:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is fairly trivial, but I've seen worse - and it is also verifiable and it's hard to see how it could be merged anywhere where it would be as useful. It needs far more linking to other articles, though. Would make a reasonable addition to WP:UA, too. To answer one or two of the comments above, I don't see how this is possibly covered by WP:NOT, and non-existent things can be very notable - are you planning to nominate Harry Potter or Unicorn for deletion, perhaps? Grutness...wha? 01:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
But I don't see it meeting WP:V. There are no citations for sources for any of the entries. There are two external embedded links, but they are there to support WP:OR as the edittor makes a case for why a license plate is anachronistic. -- Whpq 12:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Interesting, but undeniably listcruft. Has no sources, either. Danny Lilithborne 02:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR, Not verifiable. Too bad, I was going to argue, "not paper". :) Dlohcierekim 04:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Trivial is in the eye of the beholder. Some license plate numbers, such as the license plate used for the Firebird in the Rockford Files, represent links to the actor. Other license plate numbers allude to an inside joke or other non-common knowledge. But all license plate numbers are registered with a Department of Motor Vehicles somewhere, and are linked to the individual or entity that registered the vehicle. That's historical information, the value of which can not always be established in the present. Imagine the History Detectives using this article and being able to confirm a car bought at auction was once used in film or television. Or establishing that a now famous person was at one time a grunt working for a production company and was tasked with registering such a car. There are also intangible possibilities, such as finding patterns in the registration of license plates. And as we all know, once a pattern has been found, predictions can be made. TK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.169.97.68 (talk) .
    Comment'- any license plate info about a notable show can be included on the article about the show. The article itself is an indiscriminate collection of information. We are talking about fictional license plates. License plate numbers change from time to time, so it would not remain verifiable for later research or pattern finding. Also, who is to say that the license plate number on a car in a TV show is its actual, DMV number? A car on a studio lot in CA about a show in NJ will have a NJ license. But does that mean it is registered in NJ? The problesms of verifiability and OR remain :) Dlohcierekim 13:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment'- The problem with including the license plate with a particular show is that the number of plates included could become enormous. If there is an article devoted to license plates it is a compendium of license plate data that can also be linked to a show or shows. I would further argue that "indiscriminate" is in the eye of the beholder as much as is trivial. The limited lifetime of a particular license plate number is true, but irrelevant when it comes to pattern searching. A license plate might be used on one vehicle, and that vehicle may appear in several television shows or feature films. The vehicle itself may even transfer between studios, directors or producers. I don't know that to be the case, but that is the point of pattern searching, which can only be done when there is data available. One valid research example would be in using license plate numbers to connect the use of vehicles to studio/production company spending trends in a given period. In most of the older TV shows I notice that the same vehicles are used over and over as background vehicles. To me this implies limited available vehicles or limited financial resources. I don't notice the same pattern in newer shows, at least to the same extent. If it were possible to compile the VINs of these vehicles I would argue that it should be done along with license plates. Your question regarding shows that are produced in one location but feature vehicles in a different, staged location is valid. But it also supports the existence of an article of compiled license plates. To that end, another valid research question could explore whther there exists a stock of license plates that are used on various vehicles, or whether the license plate is legally registered to a specific vehicle. I would also argue that these are not "fictional" license plates. These are real license plates that are found on real vehicles that are used in fictional productions. TK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.169.97.68 (talk) .
  • Delete; nearly all the entries are non-notable, and those that are notable should be on their own pages, not here. When listing actors in a movie, we don’t include the extras; this list is the automotive equivalent to a list of extras. --Rob Kennedy 22:30, 4 September 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.


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 No consensus, so keep. (aeropagitica) 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of art magazines

Delete (nom) WP is not an arbitrary collection of lists. Articles can be added to an appropriate category. All this seems to be is a collection of redlinks and web links (which WP is also not). — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment From WP:LIST: Lists have three main purposes: Information ... Navigation ... Development - Let's address them. Information - there is no additional info over a category. Navigation - more than 1/2 are redlinks so it is just a web directory. Development - are all these magazines actually notable enough to create articles for each? (Hint: I found this list cleaning up behind an AfD on one of them already). — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll address the issues seperately.
  • Information - the list does contain some information that the category doesn't (such as where some magasines are based). So it passes the first main purpose of a list
  • Navigation - there are some redlinks, but also lots of blue links. Therefor, the list does serve a navigational purpose.
  • Development - if half the magasines are redlinked, there's obviously room to use this article for development, if desired. If not, it at least satisfies two of the three possible uses of a list. The arguments for deletion all boil down to This article is a stub which is a terrible criterion for deletion. WilyD 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's currently not much precedent for magazine lists, and I certainly wouldn't want to see List of cooking magazines, List of swimsuit magazines, List of photography magazines, List of porn magazines, List of tattoo magazines, List of dog magazines, List of cat magazines, List of travel magazines, List of electronics magazines, List of paranormal magazines, List of wedding magazines, List of southern magazines, List of film magazines, List of pop culture magazines, List of science magazines, List of science fiction magazines, List of industrial magazines, List of dental industry magazines, List of insurance industry magazines, List of airline magazines, List of game magazines, List of internet magazines, List of music magazines, or List of holiday magazines cluttering up Wikipedia anytime soon. wikipediatrix 17:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm aware some people don't like lists, but lists serve a valuable purpose that only become more valuable with time. Navigation of Wikipedia gets harder and harder as more articles are added, and lists provide a way to get a quick overview of a whole subject, while linking to relevent main articles for more information. Sure, this list isn't up to Featured List or even Good List status yet, but I'll reiterate my argument that This article is a stub is a terrible criterion for deletion. Lists are a way of avoiding clutter, not creating it - and as long as they're encyclopaedic, there's no reason to delete them per Wikipedia:She be many things, eh? But she's ain't paper, not at all. WilyD 17:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
How would you feel about removing the red links and transporting the blue ones to an "art" section of List of magazines? wikipediatrix 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Lists of magasines is already sorted by country - double sorting seems undesirable (but I may be alone on that). There are already several other entries in Category:Lists of magazines. I'm really not attatched to the redlinked ones regardless of the outcome of this. WilyD 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WilyD. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There is already an "art magazine" category, which this article is in. :) Dlohcierekim 05:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WilyD. If you don't like the external and red links you can take them out with the "edit" button, you don't need an AFD. Kappa 06:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per WilyD.-Kmaguir1 08:55, 31 August 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.


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. (aeropagitica) 11:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of iPod model numbers

Listcruft, anyone? This article serves no useful encyclopedic purpose, and is completely unreferenced. This doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Mysekurity 21:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT. Aplomado talk 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Aplomado I can't imagine a use for this. :) Dlohcierekim 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regardless of being fit for purpose the list is either OR or copyvio.Garrie 00:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Nigel (Talk) 12:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Do NOT Delete. I can't find a list like this anywhere else and I would like to use it as a reference. --Bgrupczy 15:26, 30 August 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.
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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  09:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of proverbial pairs

Indiscriminate list of X and/or Y phrases Carlossuarez46 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. Normally I have no problem with lists, but this goes too far. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nintendude list. Danny Lilithborne 20:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's easy for this reaction to become a reflex. But we must fight that, and consider each article on its merits as an article, irrespective of the original author. For a good reason for avoiding the reflex, witness the fact that this article was actually created by Jay (talk • contribs), and that Nintendude (talk • contribs) has never edited it, causing that rationale to completely fall apart. Uncle G 10:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment It's a metaphor; Nintendude made a lot of ridiculous lists early on. But I guess I'll go back to calling it "listcruft". :/ Danny Lilithborne 02:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete come on, this is taking the.... well, anyway, lets just say it's totally unnecessary. - Blood red sandman 21:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep— Wikipedia may not be an indiscriminate collection of information but our policy does not address this kind of list yet. Our current proscribed lists are: 1) Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, 2) Travel guides, 3) Memorials, 4) Instruction manuals, 5) Internet guides, 6) Textbooks & annotated texts, and 7) Plot summaries. So we are not dealing with something that is strictly excluded by existing policy. This list has been edited by over 20 people before nomintated for deletion—the people have spoken with their fingers—it is useful because someone is using it—keep it. And perhaps we need to address at the Wikipolicy level. Williamborg (Bill) 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Rubbish. The number of editors has no bearing at all. That's an utterly silly metric to be using. We've had unencyclopaedic articles edited by many more people than that. Furthermore, we have plenty of guidelines for the appropriate topics for lists, given at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Please base your arguments on our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines rather than upon fallacious "Lots of people have edited it, therefore we must keep it." arguments. Uncle G 01:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I strongly agree one should base one's arguments on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and I can see that you feel strongly about this topic, but your arguments were not specific. Specifically I'd appreciate a quote from Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) that precludes this type of list. I see nothing there that would guide this discussion in one direction of another. Thanks in advance - Williamborg (Bill) 04:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It is you, who are putting forward the keep/delete opinion, that should be quoting Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). And there's plenty of guidance there, and things that one can base a rationale upon. Please actually read the page. Uncle G 10:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I thank you for pointing out Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)

      After reading Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), and I readily acknowledge I don't read with the wisdom and insight of an administrator such as yourself, I find it of little assistance in providing insight whether this is valid or not. I still have the impression that we are not dealing with something that is strictly excluded by existing policy (nor for that matter mandated by current policy).

      That said, it is not my intent to incur the enmity of an administrator, so I'll leave this discussion quietly. I do appreciate your efforts to educate me on Wikipolicy. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom.--RMHED 22:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this list has potential. I don't think this is a topic that's going to attract much cruft (unlike List of Nintendo characters which was miraculously kept). Irongargoyle 00:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It's already mostly cruft, no citations of any usage either proverbially or idiomatically; bacon & eggs usually refers to a pig-and-chicken-ova meal, and pairing Steve Jobs with Steve Wozniak is just a fact, you could put any (and every) two famous collaboraters or antagonists together and make a pair: Sacco and Vanzetti, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, Hitler and Stalin, Hitler and Churchill, or as a "contrast" just some nice people with some less savory ones: Mother Theresa and Jeffrey Dahmer. There's no objective criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research, no indication here of what makes a pair "proverbial" rather than merely descriptive. Gazpacho 04:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The article links to proverb and idiom in its very first sentence. Uncle G 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I started the list, in fact I categorized and started all lists in the Lists of pairs page. I did it at a time when Wikipedia:Category was not yet conceptualized, and there was just one long standalone list List of famous pairs. Extracted the content for all lists from the master list. I haven't visited these lists lately, but I do see a lot of worthy contributions made. If this list is not for wikipedia, where should it go ? Wiktionary ? Proverbial pairs are some kind of information. If the list has become indiscriminate, control it, if trivial, remove the entries, if the definitions are not clear, define them better. Jay 19:53, 30 August 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.


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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Animal Crossing residents

Blatant game-guide. While Characters in the Animal Crossing series, a terrible article, at least covers characters who appear in every copy of a game and have a somewhat important role, this is a list of randomly-appearing (every player's game will have about a half-dozen from this list) characters who are nothing more than a fixed appearance and one of four personality profiles. Absolutely nothing verifiable can or ever will be said about these characters in any reliable source, save for the inane game-guide fact that they appear in such-and-such game and have one of the four personality profiles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with Animal Crossing series since plenty of articles have Wikitables like that one. SNS 02:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This is pure GameFAQs content, and if it's merged there, I will be deleting it from that article per WP:NOT, just as an editorial decision. Nothing can be added to this list of essentially unimportant names but more game-guide info. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOT. wikipediatrix 03:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane talk 10:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: looks like something that should be in a game guide, not wikipedia. Mitaphane talk 10:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete awfull article. Wikipedia is not the place to publish game manuals, specially obscure games --Mecanismo | Talk 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps Animal Crossing isn't big in Portugal, but in both Japan and the United States, it's a huge series. Obscure? Not even a little bit. -- Kicking222 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per SNS. -- Kicking222 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is a game guide, not an article. JIP | Talk 14:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm really wondering here: HOW IS THIS A GAME GUIDE? The article is merely a list of characters, just with little information on them. There's no "guide" here: the page doesn't tell you how to become friends with these characters, or what actions can be taken when they're around, or list off some cheats to allow you to make these characters topless. I've never even played this game, so it's not as if I have some vested interest in it. But at least three different people above have used the phrase "game guide", which this is not. -- Kicking222 15:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not so much a guide as a document that will only be of interest and use to players of Animal Crossing. Too specific information about elements in a specific computer game is not encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 16:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a checklist. Game guides for Animal Crossing will often be just lists of things, since the game doesn't have much in the way of goals, so a common make-your-own-goal is seeing all of a type of thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand greatly I don't think that it's fair to have Creatures in the Metroid series, the talk page of which has no mention of the word "Game Guide," and delete this. This is a list of characters with more personality and purpose in their game than Autoads, Drivels, and Proboscums have in Metroid, yet for some reason, this is a Game Guide and Creatures in the Metroid series isn't. 64.175.36.108 22:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, I think the Metroid lists should be deleted too. wikipediatrix 22:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    Expand it with what? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly it is not a game guide. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Merge per SNS. Pixelface 01:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into Characters in the Animal Crossing series, NOT Animal Crossing series. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Those characters listed on the page are non-notable, incredibly minor to the point of interchangability, and do not even necessarily exist in the player's game. There is nothing to actually say about them. --tjstrf 22:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - With no merge - excessively minor "characters". Wickethewok 17:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Combination 20:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, merge, MERGE!

I am opposed to deleting this or any article. If ANYONE deletes this page, I will re-create it.

And if you do, the admins will rightfully speedy delete as a recreation of deleted content. You aren't allowed to just unilaterally override an afd like that. WP:DRV is the proper venue for such things. --tjstrf 20:16, 30 August 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.


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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of inventors killed by their own inventions

Trivia. Nobody cares. Another one of the many delete-worthy inventor/invention pages ...And Beyond! 13:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • On the contrary, this is of a kin with those articles that get Wikipedia mentions in the press alongside phrases like, "... is why Wikipedia is so great", or "In what other encyclopaedia could you find ...". It needs cleanup and expansion, not deletion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The article answers the second question. ☺ Uncle G 16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per fuddlemark. I foresee much hilarity. --bainer (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion per fuddlemark. This is notable, and somewhat interesting actually. — Wackymacs 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be expanded. JIP | Talk 15:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if it can be expanded. Very interesting. Punkmorten 15:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the above reasons. --Stemonitis 16:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per fuddlemark. Agne 16:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I love it! Has great potential. --AStanhope 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Pile-on Keep— AStanhope loves it! I love it! There've got to be others who think this is a useful list. Heck, I might even support an appropriate neologism for THIS concept. Perhaps a sub-award to the Darwin Award, the Haman Award? Williamborg (Bill) 17:

53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The Haman Award! I love it! --AStanhope 22:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: clear criterion for inclusion; many inventions interesting in their own right. Add Guillotin when my fixed line Internet is back up. Stephen B Streater 18:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    It turns out Guilotin neither invented nor was killed by the guillotine - I've learned something already. Stephen B Streater 18:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: In addition you can add those killed by Fluorine and Oroya Fever (Daniel Carrion) Doctor Bruno 18:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Fuddlemark. An interesting list, needs expansion. Marie Curie might be added. Espresso Addict 19:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fuddlemark. Carlossuarez46 20:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I mean, dude. This is exactly why Wikipedia is great. Penelope D 22:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If nobody cares, call me a nobody. Actually, this article has a lot of great warnings to would-be inventors, and is a general commentary on some of the arrogance that some inventors display. Great page! Akradecki 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. —dimæ [diskussion—archiv] 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Valuable list, not likely to be found anywhere else. - Longhair 03:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • ... apart from all of the places that have copies of Brewers'. ☺ Uncle G 14:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Emphatic Keep. This article is a useful reference tool as well as a one-stop guide for cases of "it seemed a good idea at the time" throughout history. Chris Buckey 05:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Definite keep. Yes expansion would be good but this seems worthwhile on a number of levels. At least as interesting potentially as the List of unusual deaths I feel. --Nigel (Talk) 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. It looks like somebody does care. RFerreira 06:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - unlike some lists that are effectively infinite (better to put all references in category), this has potential, though where do you draw the line? The Curie's discovered, rather than "invented" Radium, but rheir work with it killed them. Ace of Risk 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: IMHO, that indeed would qualify, and should be added. Akradecki 15:09, 30 August 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.


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. (aeropagitica) 23:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of video games based on webcomics

It seems kind of rediculous to have such a narrow list around. 2 entries, and I doubt there will be many more. We don't need lists of every combination of things, since WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete Danny Lilithborne 10:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane talk 10:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge: into List of video games based on licensed properties. Mitaphane talk 10:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Silly 2-item list. One is a "real" game and one is a fan-created game which would likely not survive an AfD. Neither has even been released yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article, and mention Penny Arcade on the list noted by Mitaphane above. Like Andrew, I don't think the other game would survive an AfD, and I don't think there's any reason to not discuss that game here (in a separate AfD, obviously). Penny Arcade can simply be mentioned in the "games based on licenses" article without a redirect being created, as who would ever search "list of videogames based on webcomics"? -- Kicking222 12:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    To clarify, I don't think simply mentioning PA in the other article would constitute a "merge", since the only thing to merge would be the game's name and what it's based upon (and you could "merge" that from the article on the game itself). -- Kicking222 12:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete invitation for more articles about unfinished fan projects. (Should merge what's here as above.) — brighterorange (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, although I would remove one letter from the word "many". JIP | Talk 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough members to justify a list. These can be handled on List of video games based on licensed properties and split back out if there get to be a lot. Ace of Sevens 18:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a useless list. Possibly merge into List of video games based on licensed properties. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Merge proposal. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - You can throw the Penny Arcade game onto the List of video games based on licensed properties, but keep the Wotch one off it. The only reason that I've not nominated the fan game project for deletion is because there's a nice path finding example image in the article. - Hahnchen 02:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of video games based on licensed properties. This is not the place to discuss the notability of The Wotch game. LinaMishima 03:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge then delete per Ace of Sevens, until this list has more than just two entries. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:08, 30 August 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.


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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Simpson TRL Stats

unnecessary article; author keeps removing the speedy deletion templates. --Spring Rubber 17:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"unnecessary" is not one of our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 17:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm no policy expert, but look at that. It's just a bunch of pointless stats about how many times songs were played on a TV show. Surely some criterion would cover that? --Spring Rubber 17:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Are the statistics verifiable? Are they original research? You should be looking for, and asking for, sources. Uncle G 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete— Speedy deletion seems appropriate. Even in the broader sense of an enccylopedia, this appears a stretch. Williamborg (Bill) 17:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No speedy deletion criterion applies to this article. (It was nominated as "no context", but there was and is plenty of context in the very first sentence of the article to work out what it is intended to be about.) Without that, your rationale is empty. Please explain which of our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines this article contravenes. Uncle G 17:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge content to Jessica Simpson unless I'm missing something. Regarding Uncle G's very sensible question, I would suggest the content probably isn't sufficiently notable to be worthy of its own article. Addhoc 18:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Regarding Uncle G's comment, the number of times a song is played on a call in tv-show is non-encyclopedic content. KnightLago 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Untrue. It depends from what sources exist. If the number of times that a song is played is something that is discussed by many people and the subject of much literature, then it most definitely is encyclopaedic. On the other hand, if this article is the result of a Wikipedia editor counting the number of plays xyrself and reporting the result of this firsthand primary research, then it isn't. As I said, the right thing to be doing is not asking onesself "Do I think that this belongs in an encyclopaedia?" but asking "Do sources exists for this? How many sources are there? How extensive are they? Who wrote them?" Uncle G 19:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and/or merge into Jessica Simpson. I agree with Addhoc that this content doesn't meet the notability standard to have an entry all its own. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Is not interesting to regular people. It's not a speedy, though. Danny Lilithborne 20:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Not interesting to regular people" is not a deletion criteria. PLenty of things in wikipedia are interesting to only a minority of people, but we keep them anyway. WP:NOT paper. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Violates WP:OR and WP:NOT. It's minutiae too trivial to deserve a Wikipedia article of its own. wikipediatrix 22:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a collection of indiscriminate information. Wickethewok 14:47, 28 August 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.
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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of anagrams

I've submitted this page for deletion as I can't see that it has anything to do with an encyclopedia. There are dozens of website on the net that have lists of anagrams and that is where this page belongs - on a personal website or a blog entry, IMO not wikipedia.

If anyone wants to restructure it in some radical way, great, but all I see is a list of randomly chosen anagrams, many of which are original research and have no base on the web. Mglovesfun 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 22:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete - appears to be a humour piece plagiarized from elsewhere. The USSR's name was the cause of their downfall? oops. Still, Unencyclopedic.Michael Dorosh 16:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete haven't even found a single reference. Addhoc 13:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neither useful nor funny. Pavel Vozenilek 15:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. --Ktdreyer 16:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. fails WP:NOT as an indiscriminate collection of information. Thε Halo Θ 16:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per The Halo. There are an infinite number of anagrams, these are some of them, chosen at random. --Xyzzyplugh 16:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, intriguing as some of these might be, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. --Kinu t/c 16:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Eel Ted, not encyclopedic. Nuttah68 21:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Mglovesfun 00:06, 28 August 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.
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 keep. - Bobet 11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable people of Oakville, Ontario

This article was split off from Oakville, Ontario as it was an ever increasing list taking over the article. I was the editor who made the split and created the article, but the entries have been added over time during its original incarnation in the main article so I was not sure that a speedy delete was appropriate and tagged it with a PROD. There is already a Category:People from Oakville, Ontario, and I've updated articles with tags to match them up. Considering this list duplicates the category, this list should be deleted. The original PROD was contested, so I've taken this to AFD for discussion. -- Whpq 11:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Wickethewok 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back in to Oakville, Ontario. Most city articles have a list of notable residents. BoojiBoy 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment the Oakville, Ontario article currently contains a refernce to Category:People from Oakville, Ontario, but if the list is to remain, then it should stand as a separate article with a reference from the main article, as the list starts to dominate the article. -- Whpq 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:LIST. Nominator presents no real argument for deletion. WilyD 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - the reason is its duplication with an existing category. Double maintenance. -- Whpq 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Lists and categories do not serve the same function, especially in cases like this. No duplication means no reason presented for deletion. WilyD 15:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, guessing games suck, let people choose what they want to read. Kappa 15:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There aren't that many names in this article or the category and it is not an unusually significant city. True we have similar situations with things like List of people from Portland, Maine, but most of those end up for review. Lists can provide added information in what their relationship is to the topic, but I don't think that would be too important here.--T. Anthony 01:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Residents and former residents is a common theme in city articles - for better or for worse, deleting this serves no purpose other than to mess up to Oakville article. WilyD 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep due to the fact that similar lists such as List of people from San Francisco have been kept after going through the AFD process. --Edgelord 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because the list actually is better than the category because it includes the reason people are notable, not just their names, the way the category mainly would. GRBerry 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Lists like these are really just categories in article clothing. The article on the person should say why the person is notable, so a list with a notation is really unnecessary. Further, given the mobility of people, not just now but in previous decades, there's really no value in these kind of lists because the people on these lists can be "from" many, many places. Agent 86 18:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:LIST to find out why this argument is wrong. Lists serve a function that categories and consitutant articles do not - especially good lists. WilyD 03:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Read it before I posted this. LIST is a guideline, not gospel. I do not think that this is a good list or that my argument is "wrong". Agent 86 16:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • List is a guideline, but it does explain the difference between lists and categories, and rather than rehash it here, it's easier to point you to a place where the explanation is already eloquently explained. This is not really a "good list" in the sense that it couldn't make "good list" status, but we don't delete articles because they're not yet up to good article status - it doesn't make sense to hold lists to a higher standard. Given the facts of the case, your argument remains wrong. WilyD 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Just to clarify, I understood you to be using "good list" in the vernacular and not WP sense, and responded using the same sense of the phrase (and please don't construe it that I'm saying the quality of an article is a basis for deletion, because it's not). That said, I happen to disagree with you, and stand by my opinion on this matter. Agent 86 22:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I more or less, but I played a bit with the phrasing to suggest that your standards for the article are too high. WilyD 12:54, 28 August 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.
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 keep - 'interesting' often turns out not to be a strong argument for inclusion (Wikipedia's open editing nature means many people create pages, often lists, which they find 'interesting' but are later found not to be suitable for an encyclopaedia), but there aren't any arguments against inclusion presented here either. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions by age

Non-notable useless trivia.

  • Delete. Age lists are non-notable, redundant and useless trivia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobJ1981 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep. Useful information and interesting. It's not redundant because this info doesn't exist anywhere else on WP. TJ Spyke 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find it very interesting, just because someone doesn't find interest in it doesn't mean other's won't. Since the whole deal with WCW was that they only pushed old stars, I like to see who broke the mold (Giant), who was the oldest, ect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.41.14.138 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, I guess. It's pertty marginal since achieving the championship is a show-biz rather than athletic accomplishment. Cruft, but WP:NOT paper, so I don't see as it's harming anyone. Herostratus 23:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with other WCW World Heavyweight Championship list articles to List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions. Thryduulf 00:21, 30 August 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.
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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of bus routes in London

Unencyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT). Detailed information such as this can not be easily maintained as bus routes and frequencies change. Information on the areas served by buses should be on a general page such as Buses in London, with a link to detailed information of bus timetables etc that is readily available from the Transport for London's website MrHarper 22:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: These articles provide an insight not just to where they are now, but where they have been. It is common knowledge bus routes are changing but this adds to the history. I think the bus routes are not really showing to be timetables either and are constantly expanded. Also, in what way are they directories? They do not show adresses and contact numbers or any other similar info. Those are not my only reasons.Simply south 23:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a good index for the route articles (which have themselves survived AFD). Furthermore, the information is not set out in the style of a timetable (which may be cited as criterion for deletion); instead it shows which operators control the various routes and their scope (start and end points). The information, in this format, is not available elsewhere. Mrsteviec 07:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep London bus routes do not change that often, and this list, with just start and end points, is not that detailed making it easy to maintain. It does not contain frequencies as mentioned in the deletion request. It is an efficient way of presenting information not available in this format from the TfL website. How exactly would "Information on the areas served by buses should be on a general page such as Buses in London" work? Sounds like one very long and complicated page to replace a simple, easily used (and maintained) list. Page94 10:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Most of the article seems to simply be a directory of unverified and (possibly) non-notable facts, which has presumably been sourced directly from bus timetables. If that was all there was, then I'd recommend deleting the article for breaching WP:NOT in several ways (mere collection of public doman material, directory, indiscriminate information). However, a part of the article is a list of links to articles. The linked articles have recently survived the deletion process (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1, though it is worth noting that despite that AFD those articles still all look to be OR), so can be regarded for the sake of this AFD as valid articles. So while I think that this sort of article shouldn't normally belong on Wikipedia, as this article is a valid list, linking to a large number of articles, it should be kept. It's also worth noting that it, and all the bus route articles, are in need of some references. Hopefully this AFD process will motivate someone familiar with the subject to reference these articles. --Mako 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per proposal, WP:NOT a directory. Garrie 22:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If it becomes a list of related articles then that would be better served by a category, Category:London Bus Routes or similar
Comment What would you know, the category already exists: Category:London bus routes. Maybe the list is redundant then ... -- Mako 23:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - per Page94. (JROBBO 04:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
  • keep This is an important navigation/feeder page to the individual bus route pages. Without it, people will not be able to find individual pages such as London Buses route 9 (Heritage) Ohconfucius 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Page94. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: It appears this debate was not listed at WP:AfD before this point

  • Delete current indiscrimate list. Delete all uninteresting / unencyclopedic bus route articles as well. Make a list (or keep current one) of important bus routes if some list of the remaining articles is needed. Not all info, however correct and well researched, is fit for Wikipedia. Fram 08:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think. I'm in favour of articles on train and metro lines but I think I draw the line at buses - although my local routes might be interesting to me because I have travelled on them, there doesn't appear to be any genuine notability for bus routes. MLA 13:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Bus routes? C'mon... no encyclopedic value there... Wickethewok 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Lists of bus route, airline schedules, train routes or garbage pickup schedules are instantly obsolete and inaccurate. Saying "They don't change that often" means that they do change. Then Wikipedia has incorrect information. It is better to include a link from the article on the city in question to the actual webpages of the transit companies. This makes as little sense as including the London phone directory in Wikipedia. General comments about the history and nature of mass transportation in a city are encyclopedic, but this isn't. Edison 15:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP Articles on London buses have survived nomination after nomination after nomination and yet somebody else comes along and says "It's not factual enough". I, along with numerous other editors have worked hard to ensure that they are, so if you want to get rid of this list you might as well get rid of List of hospitals in England and other such lists. This should remain and continually be added to.sonicKAI 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, not every London bus route has its own article. Yet.sonicKAI 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep useful and maintainable; categories and lists are complementary. — brighterorange (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Page94. SliceNYC 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding keeping these type of articles up to date. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a schedule or guide, but an encyclopedia. As such, if a list of bus routes is encyclopedic it shouldn't only include current routes, but should also include historical routes (which would arguably be more useful than a list of current routes, as current routes are easily found on bus companies' websites). -- Mako 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete TJ Spyke 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete this is not the London Transport website. Eusebeus 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — Encyclopaedic. Useful summary of the bus routes, both present and historical, leading to individual pages on each bus route. Gives immediate information (start/end locations, operator name) over that provided by the category. Mike Peel 20:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The information as presented is encyclopaedic. The fact that it has been maintained for many months (in the face of repeated calls for deletion) proves that this is maintainable. Page94, Mako and Mike Peel all also provide very good reasons for keeping these articles. Thryduulf 23:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Q0 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP Please keep this article. It gives infomation which is quite accurate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.146.229 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete. WP is not bus company website and has no chance to keep fluid content uptodate. In the past such "articles" had been deleted. Pavel Vozenilek 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If you read a previous comment by sonicKAI you will see that articles about London bus routes have been put on AFD before and have survived. I am not sure about other bus routes but it appears there is a precident to keep London routes. You are going to have to come up with another agrument to delete. --Edgelord 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Many other articles have also gone through AfD process and survived as well. [1], [2], [3], [4] and many others. --Arnzy (whats up?) 03:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: as has been stated earlier, the bus routes in London do not change very often. Also the fact that the article is up-to-date and has continuously been so shows that your assumption that it cannot be kept up-to-date is wrong. There are many articles that most people would not even consider deleting that are not being kept up-to-date (e.g. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (President of Brazil), Ryan Air, September 29, 2003 and Republika Srpska all contain the phrase "expected in 2005" used in the future tense). Thryduulf 03:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. In an old city like London these are the direct descendants of trams. --SPUI (T - C) 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per sonicKAI there appears to be a precident for article on London bus routes to be kept. --Edgelord 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This belongs in a travel wiki. Vegaswikian 21:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This isn't a timetable, it's a useful compendium of routes, along with links to dozens (hundreds?) of related articles. Could be further enhanced by adding historical routes now discontinued, as has been done in similar articles. While this information may seem trivial to some, it is useful to others, and doesn't detract from the project. --Ckatzchatspy 08:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - plenty of people are willing to make sure it remains up-to-date. CarolGray 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - and keep it up to date Y control 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Another comment. As I mentioned above, keeping it "up to date" shouldn't be the issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. If something is worthy of being included in Wikipedia it doesn't matter if that thing is active or not (for example we have articles on topics such as Julius Caesar and Battle of Waterloo, even though those things do not exist today). So if today's London bus routes are worth listing then so are all cancelled London bus routes. -- Mako 22:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The London bus route structure has been remarkably stable, and we have been able to have articles on individual routes because of it. As such, listing them together appears to be completely justified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please per sjakkalle these routes are stable and there is good precedent Yuckfoo 19:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I find some of these {afd} discussions contain votes that are justified (paraphrasing) "well, I never heard of it, so it can't be notable." -- Geo Swan 22:47, 30 August 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Deletion_sorting_Lists_d0dc.html"