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. kingboyk 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of trivia[edit]

Lists of trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Pointless list of lists of trivia. Fundamentally unmaintainable: what is defined as trivia? BuddingJournalist 03:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. What's wrong with using Lists of topics? Far better organized, more complete, etc. Cedlaod 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the content is better contained in Lists of topics. So, delete per User:Cedlaod. -- Black Falcon 05:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (maybe). Probably shouldn't be an article. In the Wikipedia space, associated with WP:ODD, I would not be so inclined to oppose that. 129.98.214.97 11:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to category Totnesmartin 13:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would a category be helpful? What constitutes trivia? How would you determine what should populate that category? BuddingJournalist 14:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, undefined and would mainly attract more irrelevant lists - Skysmith 14:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivia is in most aspects the antithesis of encyclopedic, and an indiscrimitate dumping together of these disparate lists compounds the problem. If anything, this is more of an index than anything, which could be well-handled by proper categorization of the articles listed (which I assume is so in the majority of cases). Agent 86 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and Agent 86: somewhat self-referential and completely useless. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article practically nominates itself for deletion. Wickethewok 21:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Trivia about trivia??? It's got to go. (Although, this list may be useful for finding other such articles that ought to be deleted for the same reasons.) --Hnsampat 18:18, 17 February 2007 (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.