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. Sandstein 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of fictional characters who wear fingerless gloves[edit]

List of fictional characters who wear fingerless gloves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOT#indiscriminate. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is the very definition of a collection of indiscriminate information Dstanfor 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. The very meaning of indiscriminate. Wow. I can't believe this has been around for so long. Kafziel ^Talk 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete This article and list seems very pointless and silly. Some of the characters mentioned as well have only worn the item of clothing for about one scene as well so... Jamesbuc
• Delete per WP:NOT. Unencyclopedic collection of non-useful information. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. What a brilliant idea for a list! Why stop at the fictional characters? I have never seen a better example of what constitutes a list of indiscrimate information. Beyond pointless. WJBscribe 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete pointless, especially since in some cases the gloves are part of an outfit (i.e. Wario's motorcycling gear) instead of their usual garb (Wario's purple overalls w/ non-fingerless gloves). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Informative and well-maintained. There are tons of wacky lists lists on Wikipedia. Sparsefarce 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please do list them so it can be considered if they too should be here for their own AfD... WJBscribe 22:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Just because there are already tons of wacky lists is not an excuse to add another one. Probably time for these other wacky lists to have an encounter with WP:AFD too. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Delete Of all of the idiotic list pages that appear from time to time in our encyclopedia, this has got to be a strong contender for the award for the most trivial.--Anthony.bradbury 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information nor a finger-fetishists paradise. Create List of greengrocers with hairy knuckles and Jacket potato toppings which John Travolta detests instead. QuagmireDog 05:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Informative, but needs sources. --80.80.16.67 10:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (Whoops - wasn't logged in. --Turbothy 10:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC))Reply[reply]
• Keep Important resource for marketers of all types of winter wear. --Ambrosen 19:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete listcruft (even though I just added to it ^_^) Danny Lilithborne 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete along with List of the addresses of fictional characters, List of fictional people who were cremated, etc.. How many fictional lists is it possible to make? (about 1,460 according to Google: site:en.wikipedia.org +"list of fictional"). - Kristod (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a much better google search than mine: site:en.wikipedia.org "list of". The benefit of mine was that I saw that their could be a good use for a list Dstanfor 15:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep — Nice encyclopaedic list, I see no reason to delete. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Stong Delete this article is cleary against WP:NOT. Specifically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it does not get much more indiscriminate that this. --64.229.74.28 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, for all reasons above and hope that consensus will be deemed to have been achieved with this vote. Daniel Case 14:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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.