Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous people of the 2000s


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 01:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

List of famous people of the 2000s

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Indiscriminate list; no criteria to define who's "famous" and who isn't. Wikipedia is not a directory. Extraordinary Machine 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete indiscriminate and unmanageable GabrielF 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Was formerly a bad section in a bad article, and now that it's out on its own, it's all the more obvious.Unschool 23:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. "Famous" is a POV word, plus this list could contain thousands of items. I really want someone to explain to me how such wide-ranging, indiscriminate list could be of possible use to anyone. 23skidoo 23:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and previous comments. Otto4711 23:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subjective and indiscriminate list. Prolog 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete as many of these type of lists as possible and prevent recreation. Usedup 03:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. What about the huge lead template? Gimmetrow 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments


 * I would not presume to speak for anyone else, but as for me, I actually see "working" on Wikipedia as fun, whether I'm writing, editing, or helping to delete inexcusably crappy articles like this one. Perhaps Usedup doesn't want to enjoy his time on Wikipedia, but I see nothing wrong with viewing Wikipedia as a recreational activity, as long as one continues to be responsible in his or her work. :-) Unschool 03:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the above isn't a whoosh...Usedup wants to prevent re-creation of deleted list articles, not stop people from having fun. Otto4711 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, it was a "woosh". (Methinks I amuse none other than myself.) Unschool 20:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just tired of the stupid lists everyone makes on wikipedia. It ruins the reliability of a good site. Usedup 03:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am too. This list was one of many that made 2000s the single worst article in Wikipedia.  I created it as an "article" simply because it was difficult for anyone to realize how bad this was as a section, until it got out in the open, so to speak, on its own.  Hey, you want to see lists—bad lists—and lots of them?  Go over to 2000s, go into history, and check out the article from before January 27.  Oh my god is it awful and disgusting.  This "article" was simply part of it.  You want to put up some more AfD?  Just click on the linked articles that are on the bottom of the current 2000s.  Most of those should probably be deleted as well.  They are nothing but adolescent graffiti.Unschool 18:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. Right now I'm looking for any intersection of ethnicity/religion and occupation that doesn't make sense to delete. IE: List of Jewish Peruvian archaeologists. Sadly there are a lot more of these on wikipedia than can be easily found. Usedup 08:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How long do we have to wait before someone deletes this crap? Does one need to be an admin to delete an article?Unschool 04:09, 16 February 2007 (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.