Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Geminis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Geminis

Useless list, 1/12 of the population is in there, consensus exists for similar lists to delete Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • DELETE Oh, for crying out loud. There's no more justification for this article than there is for the List of People Who Breath Oxygen (gotcha). OfficeGirl 19:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Cruftiest of the Crufty. MarkBul 19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as indiscriminate information. --Metropolitan90 19:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Tx17777 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic of a person. Punkmorten 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per all of the above. --mordicai. 20:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • delete there are so many 'lists of...' up on AfD today, I'm in pain!Merkinsmum 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As is it could include about 550,000,000 living people plus all the departed Geminis. Even if it were List of notable Geminis it would be 1/12 of the persons eligible for biographies on Wikipedia. If anything, it could be a category, for those who think that Geminis or those born under other signs have special characteristics as a consequence. Edison 01:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per indiscriminate list. And break out the snow shovel. --Bfigura (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. What possible notability could a person's star sign give to him/her? Please don't tell me there are such lists for the other 11 signs too. JIP | Talk 10:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Listcruft and completely unencyclopediec. --Onceonthisisland 16:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete What about categories for that?--JForget 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Indiscriminate info. Even categorizing would almost seem to be original research, unless a subject self-identified as a Gemini. - Dean Wormer 04:04, 8 September 2007 (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.