Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shampoos and conditioners


 * 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 &mdash; Caknuck 02:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

List of shampoos and conditioners

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unmaintainable list. New shampoos and conditioners come out all the time, so this list would never be finished. Also, is it about current shampoos? Historical shampoos? Finally, it is a redlink farm, and I'm not sure there is much interest in making all of those links turn blue. Delete. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 03:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom, there are literally thousands of shampoos and conditioners, which ones are going to get reported? Pocopocopocopoco 03:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No need for it when we have Category:Shampoos. 17Drew 04:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unmaintainable list.  Wikipedia is not a collection of internal links.  The category mentioned above would serve this purpose much better.  Useight 04:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unecessary, unmaintainable, and not useful (and category makes it essentially redundant). Ursasapien (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, speedy if possible, per WP:NOT. Eusebeus 08:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete Not that a good article couldn't be written about shampoos and conditioners.  But this one is the list of indiscriminate information (i.e., lots of items with little more).  As Titoxd notes, it doesn't even make a distinction between current shampoos and those that are no longer manufactured--- nor between those that are sold in the United States as opposed to those in Europe, Asia, etc.  I think it's probably original research, based on someone taking a trip to the supermarket or going through advertisements in a set of magazines.  Titoxd is correct on this one-- this is the list of redlinks. Mandsford 12:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOT. Tbo 157   (talk)    (review)  16:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Gave me a spit-take when I saw this. Exact kind of "list" nonsense that doesn't belong in any dictionary.  I hate to violate the WP:BEANS policy, but why not List of food next?  Pharmboy 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As it is obviously a long directory.JForget 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This made me laugh. Should we use WP:IINFO or WP:NOT? Hey&mdash; let's use both! i said 00:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. We are NOT a directory service.  There is nothing here that can't be handled better through MediaWiki categorization.  Bur nt sau ce  16:49, 18 September 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.