Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concise List of Roman Emperors

Besides the bad title, why do we need this article when we have Roman Emperor? We also have List of Roman Emperors, so there are three articles, that I've found so far. RickK 06:10, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete the consice list; I'm undecided about the List of Roman Emperors though; it has a clearer, more detailed table format, whereas Roman Emperor has more historical notes amongst its list; perhaps the two could be merged. TPK 06:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, at least someone likes the table :) Talk:List of Roman Emperors has a discussion about keeping both Roman Emperor and List of, which is partly why it was unnecessary to add all that extra info to the List of article; perhaps this discussion should be moved there. The concise list is really unnecessary - that's what the "List of" one was before! Adam Bishop 07:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep at least one of the lists (Probably not the concise one); broad overviews are ad useful, albeit for different purposes, as more in-depth articles. Browsing the list is easier (I've actually spent some time doing so since this VfD brought it to my attention) when one wants just the names and dates of reigns, with links to individual emperor articles. -- orthogonal 08:11, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the List and delete the Concise List. I found the List interesting, too, though why anyone would want to be emperor considering how many of them were murdered or suicided.... -- Arwel 11:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is part of an effort to develop a series of lists presenting the information in different ways and at different levels of detail; we don't need people to be going around trying to delete them before the work is even finished. The titles can be easily arranged once we've figured out the content. Stan 16:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Concise List of Roman Emperors - keep only Roman Emporerand List of Roman Emperors -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:24, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep both as it's a work in progress. Salasks 18:51, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a work in progress. It might be nice if people spent just 2-3 more minutes reading to see what's up, before submitting a text to vfd. see:Talk:Concise_List_of_Roman_Emperors. The editors on the ground appear to be competent to sort things out for themselves here. Let's not interfere with them more than we have already. Kim Bruning 22:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Yawn.  Um, what?  Oh, sorry, I fell asleep in the midle of your personal attack.  RickK 04:35, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * For there to be a personal attack, first there must be a person, and then there must be an attack. :-) Kim Bruning 08:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This is actually the List of Roman Emperors that has been around for a couple of years & has been worked on by yours truly. Admittedly, I don't like it's present form -- but deletion is a bit too extreme of a solution. I'm not clear on why the "Concise" version is nothing more than the table-ized List with invisible lines; can't we vote instead on keeping the original list version? -- llywrch 04:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * (comment) How about let's keep the lot and let people actually finish them before we even consider voting? They might even amazingly be able to tidy up behind themselves. Imagine if you'd have been vfd-d even before you'd have been able to finish the original list? :-) Kim Bruning 07:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yawn. There you go again.  Boring.  RickK 04:35, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Heh, the reaction of someone who's been caught making an obvious mistake and is unwilling to just admit it and be done with the whole thing. Stan 08:14, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It would only be an obvious mistake if this article were still worth keeping. Since it's still delete-worthy, I stand by the posting here and still vote delete.  And you'll note that there are several others here who agree with me.  Please explain, then, how this listing is a mistake.  Enough now.  Bored again.  RickK 23:48, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep List of Roman Emperors, which is (becoming) a marvellous piece of work, with lots of interesting information. Perhaps Concise List of Roman Emperors also has a right to existence (no vote on that), but if so I think they should be renamed: that should be List of Roman Emperors, and that article moved to, say, Detailed list of Roman Emperors. Also, if there should be a more concise version, I don't see why that version couldn't afford to skip the dates and just show years, like most other incumbent lists do. Makes it even more overview-ish. -- Jao 08:27, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * But that's what we had before - the Roman Emperor article was the detailed list, and List of Roman Emperors was the concise list, and now no one knows what's what. Adam Bishop 15:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why is this on VfD at all? The content is significant and encyclopedic, not nonsense, not dicdef, not spam or advert. If you think it duplicates material at some other article and should be merged, then Duplicate articles is the right place, not VfD. Gdr 10:25, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
 * Keep both. The former is a work in progress and the latter should be seperate from the main article on the subject. -Sean Curtin 20:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * We don't need three levels of detail for this. Two are ample.  What's next, "Really Concise List of Roman Emperors"?  Make Concise List redirect to List.    &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 10:30, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep everything. If i remember well: Roman Emperor is about the title; the list are lists, whats the problem of that? I think that the consise list should have just 1 name and dates and the list should have small caps. Anyway a nice job of John Armagh. Muriel G 15:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * keep both. I don't see a convincing reason why the lists should be deleted. Chardon