The result was keep. Consensus is that cleanup is needed, and perhaps the list be shortened to remove fancruft, but the article should be kept. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 14:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:LISTCRUFT, no real criteria for inclusion, crossing all mediums, all genres, full of WP:OR analysis. Also WP:LSC Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply
However, the only other really extensive list online that I can think of is on another wiki and thus would not pass WP:ELNO. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Really, if we want to discuss this we should have the conversation at WT:EL. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus is that cleanup is needed, and perhaps the list be shortened to remove fancruft, but the article should be kept. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 14:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:LISTCRUFT, no real criteria for inclusion, crossing all mediums, all genres, full of WP:OR analysis. Also WP:LSC Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply
However, the only other really extensive list online that I can think of is on another wiki and thus would not pass WP:ELNO. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Really, if we want to discuss this we should have the conversation at WT:EL. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC) reply