Wikipedia:Historical archive/Votes for deletion/Lists

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Historical archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

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)
Moncrief 19:45, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Syntax 00:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Rainier Schmidt 00:59, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Elf | Talk 04:50, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep all, get rid of this nonsense. Go and work on the Category system if you're that bothered. Otherwise stop tracking mud all over the house. Phil | Talk 15:24, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Lord Bob 05:02, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Ambivalenthysteria 11:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Nikola 00:26, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
ChrisO 11:32, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) Pure revenge nomination.
Agreed with ChrisO; 141 is simply nominating lists for deletion out of spite over some of his porn star lists getting the boot. Bearcat 05:06, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Dori | Talk 06:52, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC) Will be very useful once categories are set up.
Dcrt888 11:21, 2 Aug 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)

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.

I have no problem with your request, 141. I wonder whose agenda is being served when 'List of Albanian popes with more than ten toes' is considered a legitimate article... Denni 06:49, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

I am sick of people saying lists are not "encyclopaedic". Lists are merely index pages which serve to group similar topics. How many of you (if and when you buy a paper encylopaedia) rip out the index pages?
SimonMayer 23:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. How is one supposed to find anything without indexes? Granted, some of these are frivolous, but that's a matter for individual cases on VFD. Ambivalenthysteria 11:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Peace and love... Subject indices are great, and Wikipedia defintely needs them. However the present unrestricted "List"s are NOT a proper subject index, and I wonder whether they will ever become one. (1) I don't want to disparage young responsible contributors, but bare lists are the sort of thing that kids create for fun. I don't think that Wikipedia is meant to be a playground for kids, is it? Yet the present List policy will attract and encourage precisely such thing (as it seems to be happening right now). (2) Lists are useful only if they are reasonably complete and accurate; but many of the lists that have been mentioned in VfD will never get even close to that. A "List of left-handed movie actors" will never list all *actor pages* that qualify, much less all *actors*. At present, creating a new List is definitely easier than fixing or adding an entry to an existing List --- and much easier than deleting a bogus one: you figure where that will lead... So I still maintain my suggestion: every List should be formatted as a normal article, with proper defintion and context; and/or it should be clearly "owned" by *one* normal page that provides that info. All the best,Jorge Stolfi 06:38, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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. Wiktionary is not a namespace. It's a completely separate entity. 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)
      - Sorry, I misunderstood what a namespace was. I assume that with name spaces we'd have something resembling List:Famous cats. I am now largely unsure whether we should have this. It seems to make more sense. I think there should be a seperate debate on this, rather than grouping it in with VfD.
        SimonMayer 18:57, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - Yes, using a namespace would work like List:Famous cats. anthony (see warning) 11:30, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Opposed--why create a namespace that exists solely for the purpose of making transwiki links? -Sean 00:26, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A general defense of lists: Some people seem to have an instinctive apathy towards all lists. I feel they can serve a purpose, even within an encyclopedia, because a list is one form for organizing information. If a person is reading an article on "Jed Bartlet" and finds a link to a "List of Fictional Presidents" he can then follow it to articles on "Jack Ryan" or "Lex Luthor" or dozens of other articles. One list can serve as a link between any number of articles sharing a common theme. An encyclopediac article giving this same information would have to be huge and would duplicate much of the information from the individual articles; a list conveys the information simply and efficiently. As I've already said, not all lists are created equal; some are good and some are bad. But we defintiely should not enact a blanket policy banning all lists. MK 17:42, 22 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
- 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 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 — 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)

Please note that not a single one of these articles has a VfD header on it. RickK | Talk 01:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Exactly! Based solely on that none of the lists should be deleted. I just noticed this page on RC. Dori | Talk 06:56, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional cats

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)
Keep. One of the most complete and useful List of Fictional (foo) lists. Fennec 15:45, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Hemanshu. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical cats

delete. who needs it? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, does seem faintly useless. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. History is enciclopedic. Pedro 04:36, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep. several cats deserve their notoriety SimonMayer 04:46, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lists of fictional animals

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A useful meta-list. Fennec 15:47, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Fennec. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional apes

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge with list of fictional chimpanzees and monkeys; rename List of fictional primates PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
merge into primates. SimonMayer 04:47, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional bears

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Useful, there's a lot of them. Keep PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional birds

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Again, lots. Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional chimpanzees

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Merge with list of fictional apes and monkeys; rename List of fictional primates PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
merge into primates. SimonMayer 04:48, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional dinosaurs

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Delete, not enough to be useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, what is wrong with small articles? This could be useful for someone who wants to write a light hearted quiz on dinosaurs. SimonMayer 04:50, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional dogs

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep, lots of them, very informative. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Pedro 04:38, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional elephants

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Delete, not quite enough. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional horses

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep. Has info on horses from mythology, literature, etc that were very important. Jacob1207 19:26, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Jacob. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- - Keep. Changed Opinion. I suggest that Mythycal animals should be merged in a single article, or a series of articles.Pedro 04:15, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional mice and rats

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep, lots and very informative. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep SimonMayer 04:52, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional monkeys

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Merge with list of fictional apes and chimpanzees; rename List of fictional primates PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
mergePedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional pigs

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep, useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keepPedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional rabbits

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep, useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional tigers

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep, useful.
keepPedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional animals (other)

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep, useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keepPedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of famous puppets

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, there's lots of them. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical animals

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)
Keep. Jacob1207 19:26, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Important.
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of extinct animals

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)
Keep. Jacob1207 18:47, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Maybe someone who's doing a project on extinction needs it, 141? PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep Ensiform 00:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
keep --Mr. Snow 08:15, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional species

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Useful. Particularly in RPG planning sessions :) Fennec
Keep, agree with Fennec.
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of species in folklore and mythology

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep, necessary and informative.~~ PMC 04:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, the one below is much better upon closer inspection. PMC 04:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Put on cleanup, it needs a basic description of each species SimonMayer 04:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of species in folklore and mythology by type

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Actually is silly, we should have either this one or the above. Delete this one. (Merging any useful info unto the above, of course)~~ PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Change vote, keep this one, delete above, merging any useful information. This one is much better organized. PMC 04:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Merge. with the above article. Pedro 04:18, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of species in fantasy fiction

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, very useful for RPG-ers, fantasy writers, and nerds (like me ^_^) alike. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, although not my cup of tea, I understand PMC's point
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of aliens in fiction

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, interesting trivia.

List of historical apes

delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
merge into primates. SimonMayer 04:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical chimpanzees

delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
merge into primates. SimonMayer 04:57, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical dogs

delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical elephants

delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical horses

delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical monkeys

delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep. Very interesting way to organize info. --206.136.148.148 21:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of historical pigs

delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of major flops

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Jacob1207 19:28, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Amusing and useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of years in video gaming

delete. unneeded. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Content merged into timeline of video games, just a redir now. -Mrwojo 14:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of SNES games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Sega Megadrive games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Sega Genesis games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of PlayStation 2 games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of PlayStation games

delete. stupud. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Nintendo 64 games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of NES games

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)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of MMORPGs

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Macintosh games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of IBM PC games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of GameCube games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Game Boy Advance games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Game & Watch games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Famicom games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Dreamcast games

delete. stupud. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Atari 2600 games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Amiga games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of free game software

delete. no need for such a list. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of puzzle-based computer and video games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'll have to agree on this one. Stupid, delete.

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)
Moncrief 19:45, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Syntax 00:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Rainier Schmidt 00:59, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Elf | Talk 04:50, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep all, get rid of this nonsense. Go and work on the Category system if you're that bothered. Otherwise stop tracking mud all over the house. Phil | Talk 15:24, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Lord Bob 05:02, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Ambivalenthysteria 11:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Nikola 00:26, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
ChrisO 11:32, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) Pure revenge nomination.
Agreed with ChrisO; 141 is simply nominating lists for deletion out of spite over some of his porn star lists getting the boot. Bearcat 05:06, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Dori | Talk 06:52, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC) Will be very useful once categories are set up.
Dcrt888 11:21, 2 Aug 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)

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.

I have no problem with your request, 141. I wonder whose agenda is being served when 'List of Albanian popes with more than ten toes' is considered a legitimate article... Denni 06:49, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

I am sick of people saying lists are not "encyclopaedic". Lists are merely index pages which serve to group similar topics. How many of you (if and when you buy a paper encylopaedia) rip out the index pages?
SimonMayer 23:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. How is one supposed to find anything without indexes? Granted, some of these are frivolous, but that's a matter for individual cases on VFD. Ambivalenthysteria 11:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Peace and love... Subject indices are great, and Wikipedia defintely needs them. However the present unrestricted "List"s are NOT a proper subject index, and I wonder whether they will ever become one. (1) I don't want to disparage young responsible contributors, but bare lists are the sort of thing that kids create for fun. I don't think that Wikipedia is meant to be a playground for kids, is it? Yet the present List policy will attract and encourage precisely such thing (as it seems to be happening right now). (2) Lists are useful only if they are reasonably complete and accurate; but many of the lists that have been mentioned in VfD will never get even close to that. A "List of left-handed movie actors" will never list all *actor pages* that qualify, much less all *actors*. At present, creating a new List is definitely easier than fixing or adding an entry to an existing List --- and much easier than deleting a bogus one: you figure where that will lead... So I still maintain my suggestion: every List should be formatted as a normal article, with proper defintion and context; and/or it should be clearly "owned" by *one* normal page that provides that info. All the best,Jorge Stolfi 06:38, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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. Wiktionary is not a namespace. It's a completely separate entity. 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)
      - Sorry, I misunderstood what a namespace was. I assume that with name spaces we'd have something resembling List:Famous cats. I am now largely unsure whether we should have this. It seems to make more sense. I think there should be a seperate debate on this, rather than grouping it in with VfD.
        SimonMayer 18:57, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - Yes, using a namespace would work like List:Famous cats. anthony (see warning) 11:30, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Opposed--why create a namespace that exists solely for the purpose of making transwiki links? -Sean 00:26, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A general defense of lists: Some people seem to have an instinctive apathy towards all lists. I feel they can serve a purpose, even within an encyclopedia, because a list is one form for organizing information. If a person is reading an article on "Jed Bartlet" and finds a link to a "List of Fictional Presidents" he can then follow it to articles on "Jack Ryan" or "Lex Luthor" or dozens of other articles. One list can serve as a link between any number of articles sharing a common theme. An encyclopediac article giving this same information would have to be huge and would duplicate much of the information from the individual articles; a list conveys the information simply and efficiently. As I've already said, not all lists are created equal; some are good and some are bad. But we defintiely should not enact a blanket policy banning all lists. MK 17:42, 22 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
- 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 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 — 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)

Please note that not a single one of these articles has a VfD header on it. RickK | Talk 01:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Exactly! Based solely on that none of the lists should be deleted. I just noticed this page on RC. Dori | Talk 06:56, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional cats

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)
Keep. One of the most complete and useful List of Fictional (foo) lists. Fennec 15:45, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Hemanshu. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical cats

delete. who needs it? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, does seem faintly useless. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. History is enciclopedic. Pedro 04:36, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep. several cats deserve their notoriety SimonMayer 04:46, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lists of fictional animals

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A useful meta-list. Fennec 15:47, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Fennec. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional apes

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge with list of fictional chimpanzees and monkeys; rename List of fictional primates PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
merge into primates. SimonMayer 04:47, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional bears

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Useful, there's a lot of them. Keep PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional birds

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Again, lots. Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional chimpanzees

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Merge with list of fictional apes and monkeys; rename List of fictional primates PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
merge into primates. SimonMayer 04:48, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional dinosaurs

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Delete, not enough to be useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, what is wrong with small articles? This could be useful for someone who wants to write a light hearted quiz on dinosaurs. SimonMayer 04:50, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional dogs

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep, lots of them, very informative. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Pedro 04:38, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional elephants

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Delete, not quite enough. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional horses

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep. Has info on horses from mythology, literature, etc that were very important. Jacob1207 19:26, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Jacob. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- - Keep. Changed Opinion. I suggest that Mythycal animals should be merged in a single article, or a series of articles.Pedro 04:15, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional mice and rats

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep, lots and very informative. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep SimonMayer 04:52, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional monkeys

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Merge with list of fictional apes and chimpanzees; rename List of fictional primates PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
mergePedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional pigs

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep, useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keepPedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional rabbits

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep, useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.Pedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional tigers

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep, useful.
keepPedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional animals (other)

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep, useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keepPedro 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of famous puppets

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, there's lots of them. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical animals

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)
Keep. Jacob1207 19:26, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Important.
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of extinct animals

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)
Keep. Jacob1207 18:47, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Maybe someone who's doing a project on extinction needs it, 141? PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep Ensiform 00:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
keep --Mr. Snow 08:15, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional species

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Useful. Particularly in RPG planning sessions :) Fennec
Keep, agree with Fennec.
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of species in folklore and mythology

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep, necessary and informative.~~ PMC 04:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, the one below is much better upon closer inspection. PMC 04:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Put on cleanup, it needs a basic description of each species SimonMayer 04:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of species in folklore and mythology by type

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Actually is silly, we should have either this one or the above. Delete this one. (Merging any useful info unto the above, of course)~~ PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Change vote, keep this one, delete above, merging any useful information. This one is much better organized. PMC 04:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Merge. with the above article. Pedro 04:18, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of species in fantasy fiction

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, very useful for RPG-ers, fantasy writers, and nerds (like me ^_^) alike. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, although not my cup of tea, I understand PMC's point
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of aliens in fiction

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, interesting trivia.

List of historical apes

delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
merge into primates. SimonMayer 04:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical chimpanzees

delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
merge into primates. SimonMayer 04:57, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical dogs

delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical elephants

delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical horses

delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of historical monkeys

delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep. Very interesting way to organize info. --206.136.148.148 21:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of historical pigs

delete. nobody needs it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of major flops

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Jacob1207 19:28, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Amusing and useful. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of years in video gaming

delete. unneeded. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Content merged into timeline of video games, just a redir now. -Mrwojo 14:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of SNES games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Sega Megadrive games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Sega Genesis games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of PlayStation 2 games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of PlayStation games

delete. stupud. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Nintendo 64 games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of NES games

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)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of MMORPGs

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Macintosh games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of IBM PC games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of GameCube games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Game Boy Advance games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Game & Watch games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Famicom games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Dreamcast games

delete. stupud. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Atari 2600 games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Amiga games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why stupid? Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of free game software

delete. no need for such a list. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of puzzle-based computer and video games

delete. stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'll have to agree on this one. Stupid, delete.

List of computer and video games by category

delete. encyclopedias don't have stupid lists. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Then what about your porn star lists, huh? Keep! PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of computer and video games by name

delete. encyclopedias don't have stupid lists. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Then what about your porn star lists, huh? Keep! PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of hats and headgear

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete Ensiform 00:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

List of characters from The Simpsons

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The Simpsons is very popular and many of the characters are caricatures. This page has a lot of content on it. Jacob1207 19:34, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Jacob. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of UK television series

delete. who needs it? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- People in the UK, of course! Keep! PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
KEEP. Moncrief 19:47, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Albanian films

delete. probably fictious. I don't believe Albania produces films.

141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- Probably ficticious? Keep, until you can prove Albania doesn't produce films. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jacob1207 19:35, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep of course. I am from Albania, and I have seen most of these movies. There was no notice places on the page either. Dori | Talk 06:46, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

List of films about independent body parts

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, gonna have to agree here. Delete. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete Ensiform 00:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, approaching the realm of stupid. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of films using the Wilhelm scream

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Amusing trivia. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of gay-related movies

delete. silly. Why not a List of heterosexual-related movies? Or a List of bisexual-related movies? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Most movies are heterosexual-related, by definition. A gay-themed movie is notable precisely because such things are much fewer and farther between than male-female romantic comedies, family dramas, etc. Bearcat 05:03, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
While I certainly cannot claim to speak for gays, they may find such a list useful with regards to socio-political-movement-stuff. 'Tis a topical socio-political-whatever issue; a list of films that address it could be construed as encyclopedic.
I'll have to agree with 141 on this. What next, a list of man-related movies? Then woman-related? Delete. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of songs about bipolar disorder

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of songs which have the word Song in title or lyrics

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jacob1207 19:43, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete --Mr. Snow 08:17, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

List of songs whose main title appears more than twenty times in the lyrics

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)
Keep, good for people like me with nothing to do :) PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Interresting. I must See :) Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, very interesting! PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of songs in which the title constitutes the entire lyrics

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
KEEP. interresting Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, interesting trivia. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of song titles phrased as questions

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of punk cities

delete. nobody wants it. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. What exactly constitutes a punk city?
delete or find some other place to put this the name doesn't make any sense --Mr. Snow 08:19, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

List of Polish composers

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)
- No, don't be silly, why would they care about their own country(wo)men? </sarcasm> Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep. Pedro 20:02, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional robots

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Jacob1207 19:46, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional computers

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional companies

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional cities

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- keep.Pedro 04:52, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional battles

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of banned books

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)
- Yeah, that is a pretty silly comment. Jacob1207 19:40, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. But change to an article about Banned Books with that listPedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's an good article to have. Jacob1207 19:40, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- sure it is Pedro 20:03, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, very useful and very interesting to see what our government is censoring now. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of most expensive paintings

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Create article about expensive paintingsPedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, he said, surprising himself. This is useful factoid material of the type you see in newspapers when they need filler. Ensiform 00:54, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

List of loop knots

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of hitch knots

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of binding knots

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of knots

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Interresting. Make article. Not just a stupid list.Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community centers

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)
  - Lol. No vote. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of schools by country

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, most schools really aren't notable enough for an encyclopedia. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of oldest universities in continuous operation

delete. silly. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. make Article about oldest universities Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Polish divisions in WWII

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)
  - Don't be silly, what Pole cares about their country? </sarcasm> Keep! PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I bet more ppl would do!Pedro 20:09, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of kidnappings

delete. Wikipedia is not a news site. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of extinct states

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)
Keep. Jacob1207 19:47, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of supermarkets

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of ethnic groups in Laos

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)
  - Possibly, yes. *eye-rolling* Keep PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Article about Ethnic Groups in laos. Interresting and useful Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of unusual English words

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of words of disputed pronunciation

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Interresting! Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of advertising slogans

delete. ad. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. "Just do it". Fennec 14:01, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Latin phrases

delete. WIkipedia is not a dictionary. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep! cool Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's very cool. Jacob1207 19:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, cool! PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Greek phrases

delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep. Way Cool Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of all two-letter combinations

delete. what's the point? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. huh?! Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. if for some strange reason someone wanted that info they could easily make it themselves. this article is really stupid --Mr. Snow 08:23, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

List of two-letter English words

delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of monasteries dissolved by Henry VIII of England

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Create article Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of specific demons and types of demons

delete. Stupid. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep.... keep... 1000000000 times KEEP Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Jacob1207 19:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oh gods, delete. *twitches* More demonology crap...PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- LOL. Its interresting to read about. But yes, some people are lunitics. But the article is a good source to investigate about demons.Pedro 04:28, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional ships

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of closed Melbourne railway stations

delete. only of local interest. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of foods named after people

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. lol Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of city nicknames

delete. probably fictious. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

*delete. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Has a lot of content. Jacob1207 19:54, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Changed Opinion. It really has!Pedro 20:06, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, pretty cool. And ficticious? Prove it before you accuse, 141. PMC 04:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of planned cities

delete. irrelevant. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neutral Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of craters on Mars

delete. silly 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Useful. Pedro 04:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of important news web sites

delete. impossible to be NPOV. who defines what is important? 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Moncrief 22:53, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete Pedro 04:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Jacob1207 19:55, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems

delete. a silly list. 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Moncrief 22:52, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Pedro 04:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Timwi 05:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)