Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most expensive things


 * 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 delete. - Philippe 03:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

List of most expensive things

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

This article lists a number of expensive things from a painting to coffee to certain precious metals. The word "things" in the title gives rise to questions about what should or should not be included. Also, the article is on a rather obscure subject. Finally, it may be difficult to tell if some of the listed things are indeed the most expensive things. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as possibly one of the loosest defined lists on Wikipedia -- no clear definition as to what "things" constitutes. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend to the closer of this discussion that this argument be ignored for irrelevance, in response to its citing an easily remediable title/content deficiency, rather than addressing the encyclopedicity of the topic, as discussed in my contrib below, annotated "Comment". --Jerzy•t 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral The article's purpose seems awkward in that the table does not have categories or labels for what each most expensive thing is the most expensive of. For example, the abstract painting by Jackson Pollock should be labeled the most expensive 'abstract painting ever sold at auction'. However, if the article is left unchanged for some amount of time without labeling, the article should be deleted. If it is deleted, it should be made into a redirect page that redirects to the Most expensive disambiguation page where there are related articles with narrower topics. Some of the things listed in this article may be merged into some of the narrower articles. WinterSpw (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT, this is merely an excuse to have an article that states world records. The Dominator (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend to the closer of this discussion that this argument be ignored for irrelevance, in response to its citing WP:NOT, without making any relevant argument that that policy is applicable, as discussed in my contrib below, annotated "Comment". --Jerzy•t 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Although other sources are cited, the real surprise would be if there are any categories on here that haven't, at one time or another, been listed in the Guinness Book of World Records. Mandsford (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A bit loose.  I think sub-articles with better criteria (List of expensive paintings, Celarnor Talk to me  09:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Pretty loose and a vio of WP:NOT. Seems to be something made up while bored or at least original research Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend to the closer of this discussion that this argument be ignored for irrelevance, in response to its citing WP:NOT, without making any relevant argument that that policy is applicable, as discussed in my contrib below, annotated "Comment". --Jerzy•t 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete WAY too broad. I have no problems with seperate "most expensive cars/pizzas/metals etc." lists however Rename and Clean-up per Jarzy's comments--Armanalp (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)-Armanalp (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Define "things". Otherwise too broad Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 02:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend to the closer of this discussion that this argument be ignored for irrelevance, in response to its citing an easily remediable title/content deficiency, rather than addressing the encyclopedicity of the topic, as discussed in my contrib below, annotated "Comment". --Jerzy•t 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. On the principle that WP is not a lynch mob, i'm marking several "votes" with a recommendation that they be disregarded.
 * "Things" may be a poorly worded choice, but that should not be a reason for more than a renaming, or even just a more specific specification within the lead. It might be wise, for instance, to specify that each thing have what i call "encyclopedic coverage" in an article, i.e., more than the quasi-dictdef that you would fit into the lead sent if there were to be an article on it.
 * What Wikipedia is not includes restrictions on its scope, explicitly via a footnote
 * This provision is not intended to encompass lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject.
 * and implicitly via 5 numbered paragraphs -- 4 of them in fact individually linkable, viz. #2 (WP:NOT), #3 (WP:NOT), #4 (WP:NOT), and #5 (WP:NOT) -- that should be cited in order to demonstrate that a particular invocation of "WP:NOT#DIR" is more than a term of abuse. In the case of the nominated article, it seems clear that #2-5 are inapplicable. #1 would clearly be inapplicable, except that the phrase
 * quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)
 * is preceded by
 * such as (but not limited to)
 * IMO it is incumbent upon anyone citing "WP:NOT#DIR" and intending thereby to invoke #1 to say e.g. "it is like a list of quotations or of fictional persons, because ...". --Jerzy•t 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) delete unverifiable. Laudak (talk) 03:48, 7 April 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.