Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles with "Darker" in them


 * 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 a light-colored delete. Krimpet (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

List of titles with "Darker" in them

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list seesm frankly bizarre and un-necessary. Its not realy a disambig page. Not sure what to make of it. Someboy placed a on it, but that was removed with protest to talk page. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Will we next have articles for list of titles with "lighter", "beige", "limburger", in their title? Its totally arbitrary to have a page like this, as it is not what set list articels are about. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - completely indiscriminate directory based on the coincidence of name. Otto4711 17:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - This is a totally pointless article. Who would ever want to know this information and why would it be pertinant? Also, it would be impossible to keep up with this list through maintainence as titles for movies, books, etc. are constantly being released. User: (talk • contribs • count ) 17:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is not a set index article, but rather listcruft. Or, maybe, it is The Darker Side of Nonsense. --B. Wolterding 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * STRONG MEGA UBER ULTRA KEEP!: How is this article any different than any other list or disambiguation page that has a list of links to articles containing the page's name? Stop being hypocritical, people. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: Those articles are useful (or they too need to be deleted). This article is arbitrary and not useful, as mentioned in the comments section of my nom.  There is nothing hypocritical about this. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure there is. Arbitrary relative/according to who? Not to me. I could argue every single article on Wikipedia is "arbitrary". ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like that is probably why you created this article in the first place: to disrupt the work that is done on Wikipedia for the sake of a point that it seems only you feel necessary to make. But hey, this article's deletion will give you something else to blog about, right? &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 19:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - having a list of things with "darker" in their titles is unneeded. A separate article should not be created; it's not encyclopedic. -- JHunterJ 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Says who? ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Says the consensus of Wikipedia editors. When you are the only one arguing a point, Eep, to the dgree that you are getting blocked and listed for RfC, its maybe time to reconsider your position. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is neither a Disambiguation page as none of the listed subjects is commonly known as "Darker," nor a justified list under List guideline. The section WP:SIA, which User:Eep² cited as justification for keeping this article on the talk page, needs to be re-worded or removed. The definition of "set index article" that's currently at WP:SIA appears to imply that we can use any ol' "index"--including the criterion of having the word "Darker" in the title--to define a "set" that will be the topic of a Wikipedia page. The results are pages like these. Pan Dan 19:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At some point, we have to ignore all rules and exercise common sense. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 19:25, 31 May 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.