Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of triplets


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

List of triplets

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Poorly defined list violating WP:NOTDIR - if it *is* a "list of triplets" then there are around 900,000 triplets alive today. However, this appears to include a small selection of "notable" triplets with no defined basis for inclusion. We don't need this list. Quadruplets and above are rare enough to be notable per se, so I am not co-nominating similar lists dramatic (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: A list that will never be completed. That, or, a page that would grow to 2,886,332,584 bytes. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless its inclusion criteria are narrowed to notable triplets and the article renamed accordingly. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep and cleanup. I had to move this article in order to get it listed at WP:FL without risk of having freeway overpasses pop up in it. The point is, unclear inclusion criteria can be fixed. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Whatever it may have looked like when it was first nominated, it's clearly limited to blue links and it's sourced. The "worst case scenario", of a list that would include every set of triplets that had ever lived, is the ad absurdum argument, and I suppose that any article could be edited to the limits of the absurd.  It just never seems to actually happen.  Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Requires cleanup and a lead section needs to be written following the guidelines at WP:LSC, but it is well sourced and appears to follow WP:SAL. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mandsford; if limited to sourced, notable triplets, it's an appropriate list with a clear criterion for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons given above. A list of notable triplets would not be unreasonable. Since this is the third time today I find myself in agreement with Mandsford, I'm leaving AfD for the day. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2009 (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.