Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous bank robbers and robberies


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus, kept. Chick Bowen 04:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

List of famous bank robbers and robberies
No actual content, would work much better as a category. KI 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Valid encyclopedia content. Travislangley 06:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I have come to this page often, and I think the content is not only interesting but worthy of sharing. 20:02, 22 February 2006 (PST).
 * keep - Among myriads of lists on Wikipedia, this one is as good as many others. Ashish G 02:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: This should be expanded - maybe into a table? - but seems interesting to me. I'd kinda like to see a better adjective than just the undefined "famous".  At least use the Wikibuzzword, "notable".  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Categories and lists serve different functions. While this list doesn't include information other than names, it has that potential. FYI, Category:Bank robbers already exists. --djrobgordon 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could be easily expanded and is certainly a notable subject. PJM 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs to be expanded. Frühstücksdienst 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's got plenty of actual content. No reason for deleting the information has been stated.
 * What "actual content" do you see? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Wknight94. Just like he said, this could be put into a table, and the word "notable" is much better than "famous." Notable bank robbers and robberies, perhaps. ♠ SG →Talk 04:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Valid encyclopedic content. Cyde Weys  04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep unless Vote to delete all lists is successful. ---J.Smith 06:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete really interesting topic but Ki is right, there's really no reason why this shouldn't just be a category --Nick Roberts 07:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The problem with deleting all lists and replacing them with categories is that you can't add red links to a category, which means you cannot create more extensive lists. A list itself is information, amplified by the articles it links to.- Montréalais 08:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --Ter e nce Ong 12:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete definitely useful content, but better implemented as a category. I'm not a fan of list pages on WP and it is still possible to view members of a category as a list. StephenHildrey 13:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete... shoulc be a category.--Isotope23 14:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm baffled by those who profess to see any "content." This is the perfect example of the list that ought bo e replaced by a category. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorify per norm. Cdcon 20:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but put into a category. Duinemerwen 21:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article needs a bit of work, but needs to be kept as it is still valid content. Ridge Racer 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into category Daemon8666 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that it can be useful to have it separated by countries in which it occurred, something I don't think a category can do. --Mathwizard1232 16:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep interesting, seems notable etc. Georgewilliamherbert 20:45, 26 February 2006 (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.