Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most expensive objects

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. Carlossuarez46 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most expensive objects

WP:NOT#IINFO; indiscriminate mix of "things"; a one-off object such as Hubble Telescope can't be compared to a mass produced object like a bottle of beer, or a film production, which can't even be considered an "object". Hubble cost $1,175,000,000 to produce, but Jackson Pollock's painting was sold for $140 million. These are different concepts of "value" which shouldn't be combined like this. Masaruemoto 04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont' see how you come up with a sensible list out of this. MarkBul 04:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails synthesis in vague scoping and dubious interconnection and comparison. A list of most expensive auction sales would be more encyclopedic. A list of most expensive retail items (wines, perhaps) also has a shot. A list of even the most expensive construction projects is at least going somewhere verifiably comparative. I'm not saying any of these would pass AFD, but they have a better chance than this Everything2-ish article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concept lacks cohesion as a list. Delete as a indiscriminate collection of items. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list with no real relation between the entries. JIP | Talk 07:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft of the very worst kind. MartinDK 10:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Does that mean that if prices drop we would have to update it here? Nonsense. A most expensive object can be a drug for a very poor person! -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 11:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, I am now hungry for the £85 sandwich. Damn you, Wikipedia! --Agamemnon2 13:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If you get the sandwich, wash it down with a bottle of Guinness Mandsford 14:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn you two! Now I'm both hungry and thirsty! ;) MartinDK 14:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please do not use the world's most expensive function to delete it though. Unless some severe work was done to it, and it was organised on a common theme of say, sale cost... and even then, I'd probably still be reluctant to suggest keeping it. Pursey 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of info that could conceivably contain thousands of items that are only loosely-related based on being the most expensive item in their group. Useight 03:18, 6 September 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.