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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nitrome Limited skins[edit]

List of Nitrome Limited skins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was PRODded as "utterly, boringly non-notable", and I have to say I agree; however the author wrote on the talk page "Oppose. This shouldn't be deleted because its "boring"." He didn't remove the PROD, but I'm afraid, in the spirit of WP:PROD and WP:BITE, that has to be taken as a dePROD. No, the article shouldn't be deleted because it is boring, but because the subject is not notable - there is no evidence of independent comment on these skins - and because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I had seconded the PROD, and I don't see a reason to think the original proposer necessarily meant that this article was both boring and non-notable, rather than simply being non-notable in a boring way, which I think it is. Some articles are flagrantly, outrageously non-notable. That aside, while Nitrome itself seems notable I have not been able to find that the list of its skins is; and while it may be useful to some people to collect this information here, WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Utter, boring trivia. The matter is given more than adequate coverage in Nitrome#Skins and no redirect is needed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No notability for a stand-alone article. --Teancum (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2009 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.