Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of clocks


 * 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.    Sandstein   19:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

List of clocks

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested Prod -
 * Rationale for deletion = per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, there is no special criteria for inclusion in this list other then being a clock, there is no more reason to have a list of clocks there there is to have a List of shoes
 * Rational for keep = the inclusion criterion the implied one for all lists that items should be notable, and this is a valid navigational list

AFD by Jeepday (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep the nomination includes a rationale to keep. Since we should not delete in cases of doubt, the AFD falls at the first hurdle. AFD is not a place to generally review articles which have merit, such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep we're not mind readers; no rationale for deletion has been provided. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs a lead that defines the scope, which should be clocks notable enough to have articles. With that, definite keep -- meets the criteria of WP:LIST just fine. (And yes it does do things a category couldn't: sort by region.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My caveat has been met: unambiguous keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename List of notable clocks. This list complements Category:Clocks. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I hate to contradict the previous commentators, but this article is wildly incomplete, highly subjective and, quite frankly, non-encyclopedic. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Save the clock tower article! Thirty years ago, lightning struck that clock tower article and it hasn't run since! I would consider this to be a list of landmarks that happen to have clocks on them, such as "Big Ben", and I think that's encyclopedic.  To some extent, what constitutes a landmark is subjective, so it should be limited to those clocks that have articles about them.  To that extent, I'd rather the article stay "wildly" incomplete. Mandsford (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 jiggawatts of electricity I need! Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ecoleetage. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep define the scope and edit accordinglyDGG (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - article specifies that it is for notable clocks only. It is a useful list. Aleta  Sing 04:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is plain trivia. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as list of notable clock. The inclusion criterion is that the clocks should be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. --Itub (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2008 (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.