Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All untagged deadend pages


 * 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.

The result was   Keep. As the comments say there are far too many articles there to make be able to say that they all need deleting. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All untagged deadend pages

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

NOTE: This deletion discussion applies to all pages on the following list:.

I have selected a wide variety of these pages at random, and they all suck. None of them are worth keeping. They have no citations, and often no assertion of anything that would make the article subject notable. They fail virtually all of our content policies. Some of the titles might have decent articles written at them someday, but for now, we should clear out all this junk. Note: I have not tagged each article individually, which would be an impossible task. *** Crotalus *** 20:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Inappropriate mass nomination. We improve stubs rather than delete them. - Eastmain (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with Eastmain above. And some of them aren't dead-ends anyway: Results 4-7 are pages for separate qualifying rounds for the World Cup. They are all linked to one another. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  23:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: lol The Hero of This Nation (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternative suggestion: Wouldn't it be better to work through the list tagging articles for speedy deletion where appropriate and tagging, tidying referencing and categorising the others? It is more work but more likely to save some potentially good stuff. Perhaps there is a methodical way to break up the list and do it in chunks? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec x2) Comment: I have reported this AfD to WP:ANI to get some admin eyes on it; see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 23:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I can see several articles on that list that are basically alright (eg the Bakers Delight one.) Orderinchaos 23:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The vast majority of those pages do indeed suck hard. However, there's no way anyone can offer an informed opinion on a mass nomination this broad. You've made your point (and I agree with it); it's best to close this quickly. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per WP:SNOWBALL Phoe   talk   23:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. This suggestion is both ill-considered and incorrect.  If I were a vandal, I could easily remove the links from a few perfectly good stubs, wait for this AfD to pass, and thereby remove a bunch of good pages.  There is no implementation of this idea that isn't both dangerous and half-baked.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per Eastmain, Phoe, and others. Cnilep (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.