Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of individuals executed in New York
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Keep --JAranda | watz sup 01:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Small list with no meaning to it. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 02:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:Per nomination. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 02:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are a great many such lists already on Wiki. See, for example, List of individuals executed in Alabama, among many others. Brandon39 07:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In light of the fact that current list policies do allow list of people in Alabama, etc, why not New York? Janet13 07:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, if it's too small expansion is the way to go. Valid subject. - Mgm|(talk) 11:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Obviously. Trollderella 16:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --MacRusgail 20:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the Alabama list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless expanded. These single item lists are a disgrace. -R. fiend 21:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Being a stub is not an argument for deletion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - if it's a disgrace, which I'm not convinced it is, then expand it! Trollderella 22:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should I have to do a bunch of research on a topic I have no real interest in because someone can't be bothered to write their own crappy article? You're the one who wants to keep article. You make it halfway worthwhile. I'm sick of people who decide to write "articles" but can't even do the most minimal job of making it anything but a piece of shit. -R. fiend 01:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the expansion. Thank you, Evil Monkey, for doing what no one else could be bothered to do, in making a halfway decent article here. -R. fiend 15:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - if it's a disgrace, which I'm not convinced it is, then expand it! Trollderella 22:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to say that a list can't only be one person. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 01:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - please feel free to add some more - it's just not a reason to delete it. Trollderella 01:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. CalJW 01:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've expanded the list with people I found who had articles and were executed by the state of New York (which is why the Rosenbergs are not on the list - they were executed by the United States Federal Government). Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep dead folks are harmless. Klonimus 05:29, 28 October 2005 (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.