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.
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. —
Mike (
talk •
contribs)
17:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Very weak keep extremely minor stuff, but at the same time, as I have mentioned on other list AfDs, we need something to catch the cruft to prevent it from getting out of hand. This is what we can use. — Deckiller 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Strong delete. I highly doubt we'll see many issues with people creating minor disease articles in the future. — Deckiller20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Delte. Very few of these are even remotely significant. A few manage to achieve the level of "plot point," but none of these deserve to be here. -
LtNOWIS06:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. —
Mike (
talk •
contribs)
17:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Very weak keep extremely minor stuff, but at the same time, as I have mentioned on other list AfDs, we need something to catch the cruft to prevent it from getting out of hand. This is what we can use. — Deckiller 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Strong delete. I highly doubt we'll see many issues with people creating minor disease articles in the future. — Deckiller20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Delte. Very few of these are even remotely significant. A few manage to achieve the level of "plot point," but none of these deserve to be here. -
LtNOWIS06:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)reply
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.