Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of all single-letter-single-digit combinations

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. I tried to find ways to make it a delete. :) Not going to happen. 17-12 from my count. Woohookitty 08:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable, non encyclopaedic. Woodstone 20:36:17, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

• Delete - No content and no point to this. - Tεxτurε 20:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete silliness. Johntex 20:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, this exists for the same reason that List of all two-letter combinations does. If this is deleted, then so should that list, and TLAs from AAA to DZZ, TLAs from EAA to HZZ, TLAs from IAA to LZZ, TLAs from MAA to PZZ, TLAs from QAA to TZZ, TLAs from UAA to XZZ, TLAs from YAA to ZZZ, List of TLA-Dabs, the categories Category:Lists of two-letter combinations and Category:Lists of two-letter combinations... (like various articles contained in the categories) 132.205.3.20 21:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it would just make sense to delete those all. −Woodstone 21:31:01, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

• COMMENT, This list is the result of a TfD vote to consolidate a template into a list article. 132.205.3.20
  • Do you mean this? There is a heavy vote to delete but no interest in what you are doing. There is no support for your action. Stop adding links to all the number articles (0-9) - Tεxτurε 21:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears there needs to be a split to create 0 (character)... articles then, to match up with A..Z, as 0..9 are used in writing, not just for numerical concerns. The letter pages all have links to similar lists (which are mostly on this day's AfD page) 132.205.3.20 19:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What possible purpose could this serve? If someone's interested in this nonsense then they can sit down and think up some combinations themselves. The list has absolutely no encyclopedic value. Soltak | Talk 21:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. DV8 2XL 22:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteI see no point to this kind of article. I agree with 132.205.3.20 so I am trying to put the above list on VFD as well. Psy Guy 23:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-encyclopedic. I fear the consequences of keeping this. How about a List of all 10-letter-20-digit combinations? Or am I violating WP:BEANS, again? -Splash 23:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOT. --Carnildo 23:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• clear Delete. I agree with Woodstone. These pointless lists should be purged. Dottore So 23:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and others above. DES ^(talk) 23:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete...The Quick Index pointed out by User:Titoxd renders this page obsolete and redundant. Keep. I am the creator of this particular page, and I appreciate the input from folks who wish to delete it as well as those who wish to keep it. This and related pages serve two purposes. First, a technical purpose: to assist in keeping disambiguation pages from showing up at Orphaned pages, which therefore means it assists in the goals of the pages related to Wikipedia:Links_to_disambiguating_pages. Second, a content purpose: considering Wikipedia's role as both a comprehensive encyclopedia as well as a repository of almanac-like content, pages of this kind assist in determining the extent of coverage and point toward gaps in article coverage, particularly with regard to disambiguation and acronym-based redirects. I would suggest that if there is a consensus to delete, which I doubt will emerge in the end, that rather than being deleted outright these various pages be transwiki'd to Wiktionary as appendices (similar to the appendices Names, Types of companies and Concordances). Another option that is actually more consistent with the two points I made above is to move these into the Wikipedia-namespace, where they would serve their technical and QC/administrative purposes outside the main article space; this change would be accomplished by a simple move-action, an action that I would consider taking if a delete consensus is reached. Considering these alternatives, I would appreciate your not acting to "terminate with extreme prejudice" this and related pages. Courtland 00:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC) I made a modification that conflicted with the edit/comment below ... it doesn't impinge on the interpretation of the edit below[reply]
  • I'm sure quite an effort did go into the making of these pages and I can appreciate that; I just don't think it was worth it. Soltak | Talk 00:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful to some, does not harm by being in Wikipedia. - SimonP 00:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Silly trivia, but it's only a page long and the fact that most of the links actually exist gives it some redeeming social importance. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless the lists of TLAs are also deleted. -Sean Curtin 01:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sean, I'd like to ask you to reconsider this vote. If we start using quid pro quo as our guiding principle here, we can only go downhill. Do you think this should be deleted, just like TLA? Then I ask you to vote delete. 00:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this list provides absolutely no information for readers of Wikipedia. Maybe move to creator's User: space? CDC (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this suggests that it belongs in the wikipedia namespace, not stuffed into my backyard (my user namespace) as the creator; after all, this particular page (VFD) provides asolutely no information for readers of Wikipedia either, CDC, and guess where it is ... the wikipedia namespace. Courtland 08:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's useful and doesn't violate any policies. --Apyule 05:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, people are making a WP:POINT in a bid to get the TLA lists deleted. They should stay; this should go. Proto t c 10:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- What SimonP said. Atlant 11:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I am unconvinced that this is of any value. Peeper 12:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It is useful to have articles on all possible words (to start with the articles that are discussed here). The distinction between a dictionnary/glossary and an ambitious encyclopedia like Wikipedia is not that obvious. Or maybe there should be - like the Wiktionary - a separate Wiki webpage/project called Wikiglossary (including Glossaries on Wikipedia (Category:Glossaries)), with links to Wikipedia. Brz7
• Keep. Excellent. They're all there, F1, Q6, K2. All my favorites. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You sank my battleship! --DavidConrad 09:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic pointcruft. Nandesuka 21:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pointless. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SimonP. -- DS1953 00:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to wikipedia namespace. As a reader I find it useless. As an editor it may be useful to keep. Nabla 01:11:43, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:NOT. —RaD Man (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is getting too silly. Radiant_>|< 08:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's about as useful as the TLA lists. Just remove it from your watchlist if you don't want to see it. -- User:Docu
• Keep and move to Wikipedia namespace. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no point in these pages, we already have the Quick Index! Titoxd 07:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks! I had no idea this page existed, or that the indices set of pages were there. I'm changing my opinion from "Keep" to "Delete" based on this new information. The technical issue around appearance of pages on Orphaned Pages remains, but that could be dealt with by another means, such as altering the mechanics of Orphaned Page detectection, such as excluding articles with titles of 1, 2, or 3 characters (just a thought). Courtland 11:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.