Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Very Incomplete lists

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by MZMcBride per CSD A3 (as a rephrasing of the title) -Halo 21:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Very Incomplete lists

Nearly empty page linked to only by {{Very Incomplete List}}, which is also listed at WP:TfD. Probably speediable, but I don't see a particular CSD that would apply. --Farix (Talk) 00:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as useless. "Incomplete List" is too vague a criteria. meshach 01:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there are lists that are terribly incomplete. In a hypothetical situation, if the list of U.S. presidents only has a couple presidents, and the editor doesn't who the rest are, so he would put that template and link to the page. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  We already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists for that. So what does a nearly empty project page suppose to add? --Farix (Talk) 11:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. While some lists are more incomplete than others, we gain little by less-visible, non-standard places to list them based on arbitrary cutoffs. Similarly, we don't have Wikipedia:Really Stubby stubs. Serpent's Choice 09:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually we used to -- see Wikipedia:Substub. Some of the reasoning used in the permanent mothballing of that term might also apply here. -- Visviva 06:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The classification of a list as "very incomplete" is unnecessary and unclear. The dichotomy between a complete and incomplete list is clear: either a list includes all persons, events, or objects that meet its inclusion criteria, or it does not. What is the definition of "very incomplete" (or, conversely, "very complete")? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The philosopher in me wants to BJAODN it as a self-referential joke. The "very incomplete list" is itself a very incomplete list. YechielMan 02:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Vague and redundant. Matchups 02:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete & BJAODN - No need to classify a list as very incomplete, though I agree with Yechiel, maybe BJAODN due to the irony. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 21:49, 29 May 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.