Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proper nouns containing an exclamation mark


 * 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 delete, as per both consensus and the relavancy of the arguments. Proto   ||    type    09:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

List of proper nouns containing an exclamation mark was List of proper nouns containing a bang
List of proper nouns containing anything is a poor start. In this case it's a loooong and still incomplete list of names containing an exclamation point. As far as I can tell there is no especial reason for choosing an explamation point over any other punctuation mark. A jumble of names, book titles, TV shows etc., which takes no account of the recent vogue for stuffing a shriek on the end of TV programme names. I call listcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think, first and foremost, the criteria for keeping a list like this should be based on its utility. What useful purpose can this list serve? Pondered and rejected. If someone can state reasonable bases of usefulness, I'm open to changing my vote.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, following Fuhghettaboutit. --Jadriaen 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list provides a unique insight into an aspect of pop culture that has been present since the invention of film.  Using an exclamation point is nothing new, as evidenced by Oklahoma! and many others.  It is an exciting look into the history of entertainment, which is not possible to find using Wikipedia's search engine.  GilliamJF 23:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you trying to sell something? Danny Lilithborne 02:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not meaningful or useful.  SCH ZMO  ✍ 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as totally useless. Brian G. Crawford 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but at least this one isn't as bad as List of songs whose title constitutes words cosequencing the first letters with the words. BigDT 00:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete!. Not the worst article ever.... but close. Who is going to search for this?  &middot; rodii &middot;  00:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "Nintendude list". Danny Lilithborne 02:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete First write an encyclopediac article on the use of exclamation marks in proper names, of course adhering to WP:V, WP:RS, and most importantly WP:N. Then create the list and link to that article at the header.  GRBerry 02:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nintendudecruft. (Totally useless list.) Grand  master  ka  05:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep seems useful to me.  Grue   09:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, looks like Nintendudecruft but isn't, it was Alphonze this time. See WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete first of all, it's called an exclamation point, not a bang. Secondly, it made me want to bang my head againstmy computer monitor. --Bachrach44 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Until wikipedia has a decent search engine to look for this cultural phenomenon in other articles, then this list is a useful reference point. Buttle 03:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Until it is possible to search by regular expression in Wikipedia this list will be useful for researchers of onomastics and typography.  There could also be similar lists of proper nouns containing asterisks, question marks, etc., or proper nouns beginning with a lowercase letter - an interesting type of word in English Grammar, since proper nouns in English usually begin with an uppercase letter. Alphonze 06:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Alphonze is the original author of the article. -- Kicking222 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

''This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!'' Tawker 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete!-- blue 520  02:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't even think I have to explain the rationale for voting for deletion. It's self-evident. -- Kicking222 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as useless listcruft. Also, I think the previous AfD had a pretty clear consensus, does it really need to sit for another 5 days? --Hetar 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete--Renegade-tr 02:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Usrnme h8er 02:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, pointless. We don't need lists for everything, do we? WarpstarRider 02:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep No good reasons for deletion have been advanced. While terribly dull, this is a perfectly encyclopedic list article. --Tony Sidaway 03:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per everbody above. As for Tony's observation that no good reason for deletion has been advanced, how about significance?  It's used as a criteria for Speedy Deletes, I think it's applicable here.--WilliamThweatt 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete! - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cedars 03:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't expect to find many "list of X with attribute Y" articles when I thumb through an encyclopedia, and yet this is an exotic example of one.  Sorry that we don't have a less offensive term than listcruft, but that's precisely what this article is. Vslashg  (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I doubt even a dictionary would want this. --Carnildo 03:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not an indiscriminate collection of info. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 04:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the good reasons above. To Vslashg, maybe "listshit" might fulfill your wish? Copysan 05:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Who on Earth is going to look for a list like this, and what would it tell them if they found it?  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   05:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is actually a bit funny, but belongs in a dictionary. The general phenomenon of using an exclamation mark in a proper noun could could be the object of an interesting Wikipedia article (along with a few noteworthy examples), and I wouldn't be surprised if some linguist has studied it somewhere. u p p l a n d 07:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless. The exclamation mark on 'Allo 'Allo! isn't part of any 'phenomenon', it's part of "'Allo" being a greeting. And please don't Transwiki, Wiktionary is not our dustbin. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * De!ete. The vast majority of these are actually incorrect, at least insofar as I understand what makes a proper noun, and what the word "containing" means. And pointless.  And listcruft.  And silly.  And an indiscriminate collection of information.  And this isn't a new phenomenon, or part of pop culture - just think of Westward Ho!. Vizjim 09:13, 16 May 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.