Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pairs of colleagues


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 04:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

List of pairs of colleagues

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list is an indiscriminate collection of information. It would also be unmaintainable, and the topic itself isn't clearly defined. Potentally original research as well. Sr13 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - It certainly is a indiscriminate collection of information. I also believe that it has to wide a base and many important "pairs of colleagues" might get left out. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( ταlκ )  21:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, no criteria for inclusion. Indiscriminate list. Woefully incomplete. Original research. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Break it up Will never be complete, and would even crash a Vista PC. Blueboy96 23:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly original research, an indiscriminate collection of information, and a directory. ( [ →] vish win60  - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - list of any two people who worked together for any reason at any time. But not three people.  Three is bad, for some reason.  --Haemo 03:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete PURE trivia - disallowed by WP:FIVE Corpx 04:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 05:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is better covered in the more specific subgroups of Lists of pairs. You see? I don't always say "keep", but my agreement is not based on the wording of the nom with which I disagree.   Also -if this is deleted, who will make sure that all of the information contained in this article has been re-assigned to the others I mentioned?  Surely you don't want the work of other editors to have been wasted.  I volunteer to assist in this. Tvoz | talk 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with a category. Bearian 20:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That idea works for me. Tvoz | talk 20:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per indiscriminate collection of information and original research. Carlosguitar 08:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. --Fabrictramp 14:55, 19 July 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.