Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commercial pairs
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 07:57, 12 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 07:57, 12 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. Sr13 03:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of commercial pairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. More "pair-related" obsessive list making. A list of companies whose only connection is having two names in the title seperated by an ampersand. Masaruemoto 02:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not sure why someone thinks this is notable; even if this were a category, it would be needless. How is this possibly deserving of being in an encyclopedia? Nyttend 03:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nonnotable intersection of ideas. I see that you've chosen to nominate only a pair of these lists, Masaruemoto. There's certainly more where these came from, handily listed in Lists of pairs (though not every article listed there is worthy of deletion). I'm wondering whether we shouldn't get rid of that as well, since the redlinked entries will just encourage people to create more lists of this sort. Deor 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as indiscriminate collection of information. I second the above: all of these pairs lists need scrutiny for the same reason. Gordonofcartoon 16:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. JJL 17:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This one needs to Curl Up & Dye Mandsford 00:16, 4 July 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.