from Wikipedia:Deletion review ( October 31, 2005):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of song titles phrased as questions

I do not believe I have to give a proper reason for this undeletion wish. Rather, I'd ask those who deleted the list to explain to me how they define "unmaintainable". Does it mean that we delete an article when people work on it and it gets longer? <K F> 00:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closer decision (keep deleted). Yes, you do need to provide a reason why you want this list undeleted. The list got a fair amount of discussion and pretty much everyone agreed that the criteria for inclusion in the list are too broad, hence it is unmaintainable. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 01:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (keep deleted). The discussion was robust and the community decision was clear. Rossami (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep deleted. We had this already [1] (bottom half), and it was firmly kept deleted. No reason to overturn both an afd, and a previous VfU. Sometimes, articles get deleted. - Splash ^talk 02:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• What exactly are the "criteria for inclusion" apart from a question mark at the end of a song title? And again: What is the meaning of "unmaintainable"? Keeping on claiming that the list is/was "unmaintainable" does not answer this question. And if asked to give a reason for keeping the list, the most obvious one is that it cannot be found anywhere else—certainly not in a printed encyclopaedia, but probably nowhere in the Internet either. <K F> 02:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The reasons for deletion are given in the AfD debate linked to above. That's why we run AfD debates and why DRV is not usually a place to repeat them. - Splash ^talk 02:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • No reason(s) given there except that one word: "unmaintainable". Well, a classic case of point of no return it seems. Thank God there are Wikipedia mirrors all over the place. <K F> 03:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Unmaintainable means that the list theoretically could reach an infinite length. If that is the case, then it means that it is just grouping things that don't belong together, which makes it an indiscriminate collection of facts. We like our lists short and sweet (as in List of spacecraft), not a hedgepodge of random stuff piled together. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 03:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Thanks for the explanation. I've already given up, so rather than asking you to define "we" I'd like to say good night now. <K F> 03:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
          • We = Wikipedians, what we have decided through consensus and has been written down in policy as a result (relevant policy: WP:NOT). Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 06:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
            • Also Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists. Uncle G 11:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep Deleted VfU heard this previously. No new evidence. List still bad idea. Xoloz 16:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Endorse decision (keep deleted) Valid AfD, no process violations alleged, clear consensus to delte, no new issues raised here. DES ^(talk) 16:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Relist. -- Briangotts (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Add reasoning to taste. It's not just that you think it should have been kept, right?- Splash ^talk 19:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Endorse decision (keep deleted). In addition to good reasons given by others, I strongly believe a proper reason should have to be given for the undeletion wish. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. encephalon 21:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Faced with such an overwhelming deletionist majority I don't see any way for me to continue arguing in favour of this list let alone wishing for its undeletion. If you want to know the truth, I didn't give a "proper reason" for undeletion at first because I thought it had to be either a mistake or a (rather pointless) practical joke that the list had been deleted. However, I did provide an argument later on, after I had realized that people were serious about this. My point is that nowhere on the Internet—except in Wikipedia mirror sites—and nowhere else (in printed form) will you find such a list. Its usefulness should be rated by (past, present, and future) users rather than a handful of current administrators. The question how valid the pseudo-democratic procedure is which almost all contributors to this debate are using as counterarguments does not belong here but should, as I see it, be discussed somewhere else.
  • I have retrieved this list as well as the other one ("...more than twenty times...") for my personal use. However, I was only able to do so in unwikified form. Would it be okay if I undeleted them, copied them onto my hard disc and immediately deleted them again? Or is there some other way I could achieve the same result? <K F> 19:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Technically, you can't undelete them, since you're an admin, but if people don't object, I'll userfy it to a page in your User space (like User:KF/List or similar) so you can use it there. I don't object to that. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 04:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • KF is an admin. - Splash ^talk 04:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Then that means I went over WP:LA really quickly. I apologize. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 05:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
          • Thanks. <K F> 19:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply