Wikipedia:Historical archive/Votes for deletion/Lists
This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Please see that page for justifications and discussion.
Straw poll
Keep all:
- Kingturtle 19:28, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Average Earthman 19:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Nunh-huh 20:04, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- arj 20:07, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep all. Davodd 20:23, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Alex S 20:25, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Decumanus | Talk 20:26, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep all, delete this page. RickK | Talk 20:42, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- RadicalBender 20:45, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- fabiform | talk 20:51, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Danny 23:10, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Eric119 23:23, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Sean 00:26, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Timwi 03:52, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Saul Taylor 09:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete all:
- Delete all "List of" pages, eventually. A bare list of links is not encyclopedic. Even a list of Popes should have extra info, e.g. dates, notes about the two-popes period, etc. Most importantly a list must have at least an initial blurb that defines the scope of the list, so that other people know what can be added. (Should "fictional cats" list also unnamed ones? Is Hobbes of Calvin and Hobbes a ficional cat? What about Schroedinger's cat?) Also the list must be rasonably closed and have some timelessness.Jorge Stolfi 20:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- But it comes down to how people use information. In and of itself, a list page might not be "encyclopedic" per se, but it helps to guide readers to related articles. If I'm at Carlsbad Caverns National Park, I might click on the link to List of U.S. national parks and view related content. The list pages are an equivalent to "See also", without having to put unwieldly lists of content in each article. Lists add to the usefulness of other articles and should not be considered unencyclopedic in and of themselves, but rather as encyclopedic in the context of the usefulness of the subject itself. This is why most of us consider List of fictional cats a valid list and not List of whateverwhatever porn stars who ate at Jack-in-the-Box. RadicalBender 21:59, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Agree in part: a list is OK *if* it is clearly subsidiary to some regular article that provides the necessary blurb and context. In your park example, the list should be (logically, if not physically) a part of the U. S. National Parks article, which (among other things) defines the scope of the list. The list of fictional cats would be OK if it were clearly an appendix of (or contained in) an article "Cats in literature" or "Felines in literature" or "Cats in movies" or "Cats in mythology". Then it would be clear whether tiggers qualify or not.Jorge Stolfi 00:15, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- But it comes down to how people use information. In and of itself, a list page might not be "encyclopedic" per se, but it helps to guide readers to related articles. If I'm at Carlsbad Caverns National Park, I might click on the link to List of U.S. national parks and view related content. The list pages are an equivalent to "See also", without having to put unwieldly lists of content in each article. Lists add to the usefulness of other articles and should not be considered unencyclopedic in and of themselves, but rather as encyclopedic in the context of the usefulness of the subject itself. This is why most of us consider List of fictional cats a valid list and not List of whateverwhatever porn stars who ate at Jack-in-the-Box. RadicalBender 21:59, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I Strongly Agree. This can destroy Wikipedia. Most are nonsence. Some lists are really useful but they must change how they are presented - addind text.
Create new namespace for lists:
- Anthony DiPierro 23:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Against creating new namespace for lists:
- SimonMayer 23:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) - All these various namespaces just complicate matters. For example, people rarely link to Wiktionary. It's more convenient to keep lists on the main Wikipedia. The ideal situation would probably be if a list could be merged into a proper article.
- Wiktionary is not a namespace. It should be, but it's not. Anthony DiPierro 16:21, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose. How are you supposed to link from that to all of the articles the List pages reference? RickK | Talk 23:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I don't understand. It's a namespace. You link from that to the other articles the same way you link from the Wikipedia namespace to other articles. like this. Anthony DiPierro 16:20, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It's simpler to do the [[ARTICLE NAME]] than to start going transwiki. What good is achieved by creating a new dumping ground. I think it's time Wikipedia users get over the "is it encyclopaedic?" debate and just admit that lists can be useful as can most things on here.
SimonMayer 16:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)- Again, I fail to see what transwiki has to do with anything. Is there an actual debate over whether or not lists are encyclopedic? I thought it was agreed they were not. Anthony DiPierro 16:35, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It's simpler to do the [[ARTICLE NAME]] than to start going transwiki. What good is achieved by creating a new dumping ground. I think it's time Wikipedia users get over the "is it encyclopaedic?" debate and just admit that lists can be useful as can most things on here.
- I don't understand. It's a namespace. You link from that to the other articles the same way you link from the Wikipedia namespace to other articles. like this. Anthony DiPierro 16:20, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Opposed--why create a namespace that exists solely for the purpose of making transwiki links? -Sean 00:26, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Against being against creating new namespace for lists:
- Lists are not encyclopedic. Anthony DiPierro 16:17, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep some, delete some:
- Some of these lists are useful and informative and some are trivial and ridiculous. The same will be true of future lists. We'll just have to continue deciding on a case by case basis. MK 06:16, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Discussion on issue
- Keep all unless specifically stated otherwise. This is a revenge nomination(s) and should be removed - Texture 17:49, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- not only you delete my lists, now you try to censor me! this isn't fair! 141 18:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- For the record, I voted to keep one of them. :P - Texture 18:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Regardless of the motivation for listing these, some of them probably do deserve consideration. I recommend that we let the process work. Note to User:141: Are you or have you added the VfD notices to all these pages so the interested parties can participate in the debate? Rossami
- not only you delete my lists, now you try to censor me! this isn't fair! 141 18:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree. We cannot allow VfD do become a means for people who feel slighted to abuse the system. This page is now 175 Kb and has been almost completely unfunctional for some time. I pause before posting here anymore because I know that I will have to go through three or four edit conflicts before I can post. This abuse must stop. (Keep all.) RadicalBender 18:14, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed w/RadicalBender. If I list Wikipedia for deletion will it be voted on or removed? It will be removed as an invalid candidate. Your motivation is very relevant to consideration. A nomination that you don't want deleted for a valid reason is not a valid nomination. - Texture 18:21, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with RadicalBender and Texture. 141 is behaving like a vexatious litigant, and I believe it's time we should start ignoring people who post frivolous VfD entries. -- Arwel 19:13, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
- This is more like an attempt to sabotage the system than a sensible nomination. I vote keep all. If there are any that people think are particularly useless, nominate them in the normal fashion. But not en masse. Average Earthman 19:33, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep all unless specifically stated otherwise. This is a revenge nomination(s) and should be removed - Texture 17:49, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep all I don't know about all of these articles, but they are being treated generically and this could lead to a permanent loss of valuable information. SimonMayer 18:49, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep all, for reasons mentioned above. --Mrwojo 18:59, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- This nomination is purely BJAODN ā Sverdrup 19:07, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep all unless reasons are found otherwise. Most of these have absolutely no justification given. ("stupid", "silly", and "irrelevant" en masse don't count.) Sometimes there is are a few more words of nonsense like "Who cares about the Polish?" A few of these might merit deletion, but most don't. And this is not the right place to do it in. 141 probably doesn't even really want these deleted. Eric119 23:23, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
- If any of these list do desrve to be deleted then they should be listed of VfD individually. But until then they should be kept. I'm very fond of the varios fictional animals lists and I think they're very valuable. Saul Taylor 09:18, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - useful and encyclopedic. - Texture 18:13, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - sounds silly but isn't. --Hemanshu 20:07, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. who needs it? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. who needs such a list? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Important list. Moncrief 22:53, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. who needs a list of things that don't exist anymore? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep. it can be used as evidence whether or not that chickens descended from a dinosaur. which would clearly show that the egg came before the chicken. 172.196.88.30 00:43, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. unneeded. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupud. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful, and not really possible to include into Nintendo Entertainment System. arj 20:10, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupud. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. no need for such a list. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. encyclopedias don't have stupid lists. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. encyclopedias don't have stupid lists. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. probably fictious. I don't believe Albania produces films.
141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. silly. Why not a List of heterosexual-related movies? Or a List of bisexual-related movies? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. Does this people has nothing to do LOL Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Interresting. I must SeeĀ :) Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. who cares about Poland? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I bet the Poles do. <rolls eyes> Eric119 23:23, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
- delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Wikipedia shouldn't encourage the reading of banned books. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- What a ridiculous comment. How does this article encourage the reading of banned books? What's wrong with reading banned books anyway? Eric119 23:23, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. But change to an article about Banned Books with that listPedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Create article about expensive paintingsPedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Interresting. Make article. Not just a stupid list.Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. who needs such info? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender ppl. Duh!Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. make Article about oldest universities Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. who cares about Poland? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I bet the Poles do. <rolls eyes> Eric119 23:23, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I bet more ppl would do!
- delete. Wikipedia is not a news site. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. they don't exist anymore, so nobody is willing to learn about these countries. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Except every historian and anyone with interest in history. - Texture 17:51, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - Texture 17:51, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. who cares about Laos? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I bet the Laotians do. <rolls eyes> Eric119 23:23, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Article about Ethnic Groups in laos. Interresting and useful Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. WIkipedia is not a dictionary. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep! cool Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep. Way Cool Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Create article Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep.... keep... 1000000000 times KEEP Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)