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The result was Withdrawn. It's clear this is going to be kept. Honestly I thought the article was a prank or something at first, but it does seem to have a purpose after all. Especially now that I've given it something resembling an intro. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists of lists[edit]

List of lists of lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

No context. No purpose. The content is mainly composed of dab pages (for instance, "List of A&M Records artists" disambiguates between current and former) or redirects to categories. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Really has no topic. Does not meet WP:LISTPURP. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On a totally random note, should not the article be a member of itself? It doesn't distinguish that it must be a list of lists of non-lists. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]
    • This is being debated on the talk page. Feel free to weigh in. Jenks24 (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It has a context and a topic at least as much as Category:Contents has a context and a topic. It has a useful purpose in guiding editors and researchers to lists of lists. Faulty entries on the page do not render the page useless; faulty entries can be fixed or removed, but the page in general is not faulty.—Wavelength (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What is achieved by deleting this article, other than conformance to some arbitrary "standard"? There is plenty of handy information here, much of it not found collected elsewhere. The page is viewed nearly 10,000 times a month, which in itself is a keep reason, to my mind. It offends no one, and serves a useful purpose; leave it alone. --Seduisant (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:HARMLESS are not valid arguments. You lose, try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "You lose, try again"? Believe it or not, AfDs are actually meant to be about what's best for the encyclopedia, not about winning or losing. Jenks24 (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IGNORE. Pburka (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Troll much? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You're absolutely right that it fails all the guidelines. I still think this is one the articles which makes Wikipedia fun (like Heavy metal umlaut). But the list was better when it did include itself and also List of compositions by Franz Liszt. Pburka (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm all for fun, but on the other hand, we are not Uncyclopedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wavelength. It serves a useful purpose in that it guides readers to lists of lists. At the absolute worst this should be converted to a category. I also disagree with the assertion that it "is mainly composed of dab pages" – only eight of the pages linked to are dab pages. Jenks24 (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already the category Category:Lists of lists, but List of lists of lists can be converted to a sortable wikitable.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't noticed that. Anyway, WP:CLN does say that categories and lists should live in harmony :) Jenks24 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The context is structural like the root node in a tree structure. The purpose is navigation and maintenance which are quite valid per WP:LISTPURP. Warden (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So far, I'm seeing nothing but WP:ITSUSEFUL, so you at least get a cookie for citing something valid. Anyone else got something you know, based in policy? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:29, 11 April 2012 (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.