Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works featuring a main character named Bob

List of works featuring a main character named Bob
In Votes for deletion/There is no God (list of works with phrase), I suggested that an article called There is no God (list of works with phrase) would be just as encyclopedic as an article called List of works featuring characters named Bob (that is to say, not encyclopedic at all). User:Woolysock, an obvious troll, subsequently created List of works featuring a main character named Bob. As the former was deleted, so should the latter be. As I said in the former's deletion vote, both pages are "list(s) of works with nothing significant in common and no background or explanation", and provide "no real or applicable information about that work of fiction, and therefore the usefulness of such a list as a reference source is extremely doubtful". See the predecessor vote I linked above for more excellent arguments as to why these articles should be deleted. &mdash;Triskaideka 23:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, not encyclopedic. Gazpacho 23:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-encyclopedic. Why "Bob"?  --Idont Havaname 00:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Worthless.  Postdlf 00:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. What? Ian Pugh 00:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. NeoJustin 01:37, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - now I've seen some crazy lists, but this is just really stupid. Dr Chicken
 * Delete: Back in the punk rock days, "Bob" was a name used for "anonymous fool." (E.g. "Now we wait for Bob to add our song to the playlist, but Bob may well just sell our record at the used record shop.")  This list is trollery.  Geogre 01:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Trolling. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete exercise in unencyclopaediality. Fire Star 02:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is what sets wikipedia apart from the main encyclopedias like britannica and world book. Wifki 06:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What does? Utter inanity? Delete. -R. fiend 07:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * awwwwww :( and For Your Information:
 * 1) I am a sockpuppet, not a troll
 * 2) I made the article because I thought it was a good and amusing idea, not to disrupt wikipedia.  Woolysock 07:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, if everyone who wanted to make a joke started a new article we'd have a hell of a mess. Shane King 07:33, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Useless list. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is for serious articles, not jokes. If we keep this list, we need to have one for "John" and one for "Ted" and one for "Susan"...in short, we'd need to amass a whole big series of pointless lists that nobody would keep updated just to stay consistent. An obvious delete. [[User:Livajo|&#21147;&#20255;|&#9786;]] 23:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete it already. [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 00:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless list. --Improv 05:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me. Okay, it's funny, it's certainly...thorough. Admirable, but not needed. Delete. Inky 21:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Made me laugh about as much as the Exploding Wales joke. I almost thought they forgot the movie "What about Bob?", which would have been funny. Can't stop me from voting for Delete --ExplorerCDT 03:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: joke. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another un-maintainble list, but to its credit it's funner and better formatted than most. Jayjg 17:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)