Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things sharing names with Finnish presidents


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 09:34Z 

List of things sharing names with Finnish presidents

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't see how\why anybody would use this list Yonatan (contribs/talk) 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 08:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 08:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; excessively trivial. ObtuseAngle 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced, aritrary trivia. Nuttah68 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and BJAODN. –m y s i d ☎ 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this is good enough for BJAODN. I've written much better BJAODN material. Davidicke 21:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's articles like these that give lists a bad name. 23skidoo 23:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just about the stupidest article ever. Jolb 04:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and WP:DAFT. Grutness...wha?  06:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, and the entries don't even match the wonderfully unusual title! SkierRMH 08:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a list of coincidences. It's not Wikipedia's best interest to list coincidences, is it? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, maybe we are thinking this is just such a crazy bad idea because it is all to do with finish names? Perhaps should be moved to the finish wikipedia? Don't really know, it does look like to me as if it ought to be deleted. But I'm just wondering what impact are generally english-centric views are having upon us with this debate. I'll also note that the nominator's "reasons" given for deletion are rather bad, "I don't see how\why anybody would use this list". Either way, the end result will probably be what it should. However I am trying to stress that we should take extra care in this case, which I have failed to notice happen so far. Mathmo Talk 09:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am Finnish myself, and I doubt this would fit in the Finnish Wikipedia, either – it was obviously started as a joke.–mysid ☎ 10:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, well the start of some relevant finish "expertise".... anyway, my point is that there have been extremely weak arguments (or even non-arguments) put forward. Though in the end it will get deleted, because there are even weaker arguments supporting it (or rather, none at all). Which I guess is in the end, "the right thing". Mathmo Talk 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Ridiculously trivial and unencyclopaedic Jules 09:49, 8 March 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.