Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proper nouns containing an exclamation mark (second nomination)


 * 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. There a couple of suggestions to Transwiki; the necessary history undeletion can be requested on DRV if someone really wants to do that. -Splash talk 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

List of proper nouns containing an exclamation mark
The initial keep result for this article at its first AfD was contested at DRV. A very messy sequence of events ensued involving an out-of-process deletion (and reopening, and reclosing, of the first debate.) The confusing result was judged by DRV consensus to be in error. Please begin debate here afresh, concerned only with the merits or demerits of the article. This is a procedural renomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.  Shall we make a list of hyphenated words next?  -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 04:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. To repeat what I said at the DRV, this page meets the basic standard of usefulness. Lists are useful for conducting research, e.g. on the topic of why entities choose to add exclamation points to trademarks. For instance, why was Dare (album) released as "Dare!" in the U.S. and "Dare" elsewhere? A list is the best way to organize this information because it maintains its availability for those who are interested and does not intrude upon other pages. Presuming that our policies are directed at creating a useful reference work, it's hard to imagine that they are intended to cause us to delete useful pages such as this. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are so many proper nouns that this doesn't seem maintainable or encyclopedic. I don't think this is quite as useful as Mr. Parham does.  Wickethewok 04:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reposting my comments in the previous afd: "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...." I have yet to see a good basis and I don't see how this indiscriminate list would help in determining the research question above.  --Fuhghettaboutit 04:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete!!!!. as stated above, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. JohnM4402 05:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, listcruft. --Ter e nce Ong 05:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete! per above. Like other editors, I cannot fathom how this could be useful. RGTraynor 05:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * De!ete. Illustrates no trend, contains no useful information, is not useful as a navigation aid. Totally useless. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep!! because the search engine is not adequate to provide results for this important aspect of punctuation in film!! - GilliamJF 07:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Quick note - I deleted the article last time it was on AfD because whoever relisted it didn't remove it from the first day's AfD page it was on. At the time I came across the original AfD, it was 9 days old, and had something like 26 users supporting deletion, and 5 not. Not a tough call at all. But anyway. Delete this, as it fails WP:NOT, and is pointless listcruft.   Proto    ||    type    07:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - and quickly!. What complete and utter rubbish. That list could eventually devour the entire internet, as there are so many things one could put on it. Just delete. Wikipedia is not a junkyard.Moreschi 10:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep! per above. WP 11:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic and useless list. Angr (t • c) 11:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: unuseful to have all this indiscriminate information lumped together, it's quite random and unmanageable. -- Fr a ncs2000 [[Image:Gay flag.svg|25px| ]] 11:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic and unmaintainable listcruft. Paddles 12:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't buy the arguments about why this list would be useful. To use Christopher Parham's example, if I wanted to know why the album "Dare" had different names in the US and elsewhere, I'd go look at the article Dare (album), not this list. What purpose does this list serve? When do I ask the question: "what are all the proper nouns that contain an exclamation mark"? I can't think of a realistic answer to that. If you really need the information then proper use of a search engine can generate it. This list is so inherently unmaintainable that it actually gives you a false answer. It can never be useful. Gw e rnol 13:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unency!opedic !ist. ScottW 13:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Nick C 13:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to a Wiktionary Appendix and delete from Wikipedia. To the extent that this content has use, it is to answer questions which are much more lexical than encyclopedic.  Wiktionarians tend to have better tools and processes to validate the appropriateness of individual entries than we do.  I'm okay with leaving a cross-wiki redirect behind it that would help users find it in the correct project.  Rossami (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Nope! Not convinced! Other than an indiscriminate list having a punctuation mark as commonality, there's no actual information with this entry.--Brother William 14:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG DELETE per Brother William, WP:NOT and the fact that it just greases up the ol' slope for the next, even less encyclopedic, thing to slip down...how about List of proper nouns containing a tilde, List of proper nouns containing a accute accent, List of proper nouns containing a diaeresis or my personal favorite, List of proper nouns beginning with a capital letter.--WilliamThweatt 15:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG DELETE as per above reasons. Retarded. MiracleMat 15:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Gwernol makes the argument. Tyrenius 17:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Pretty simply, it's unencyclopedic listcruft. -- Kicking222 18:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and the point made per WilliamThweatt. 23skidoo 19:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per wickethewok. --Aleph-4 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There are many things Wiki is not. The war against listcruft may never be won, but the battle can still continue. Wiki is not a dumping ground for articles which have no valid informative reason for existance. There is nothing new, nothing reasonable, nothing of encyclopedic value or worth, contained in this list. doktorb | words 21:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as not only idiotic in concept, but also inaccurate. Bwithh 21:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because who cares. Danny Lilithborne 22:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic. "Usefulness" is irrelevant. A list of movie playtimes in cities across California tonight is immensely useful. Literally thousands could benefit from it. This is an encyclopedia. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * De!ete. This page meets the basic standard of uselessness, being a large, essentially random, list of things with a minor characteristic in common. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete!!! Pavel Vozenilek 19:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ¡Delete!, just wanted to do that. Nah, per WilliamThweatt. – Elisson • Talk 20:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki! to a Wiktionary Appendix as per Rossami. Christopher Parham and GilliamJF have explained how this list is useful. It should at least be kept as an appendix. Buttle 07:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, or at least transwiki to Wiktionary. This is information which cannot be found with the search engine.  Alphonze 04:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete since it does not seem to have encyclopedic merit, I suggest taking it over to wikitionary where it could probably be reformatted into a list with definitions (assuming wiktionary does such things). Pegasus1138 Talk 06:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep! useful list.  Grue   17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete interesting but unencyclopedic. As stated above, there might be a place for this is in wiktionary, but I'm not to familiar with their policies. Cool3 19:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Reyk  YO!  07:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as yet another unmaintainable, unencyclopaedic list, Usrnme h8er 14:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's hard to see how this list can be made complete enough to be useful as a reference. Espresso Addict 19:44, 31 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.