Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llama (notable list)
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Llama (notable list) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
WP:NOT#IINFO. A new phase of indiscriminate information. Masaruemoto 02:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A llamo list. Clarityfiend 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as indiscriminate jumble of info. Ford MF 03:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was one of the original folks who moved it out of the Llama article. I thought it was not good info there but had some merit as a stand alone list. It has not been maintained or policed. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 15:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as listcruft. --Korranus 04:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as llamacruft. (Seriously, the article name is not anything that would be searched for, and the "What links here" links are not helpful.) Deor 04:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This looks like it was a trivia section removed from Llama; however, moving it to a separate article just makes it even more trivial. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. By the title, it is a list of llamas that is notable. But the paradox is that the list is not notable. This might be able to be merged into Llama under a header for llamas in popular culture, but beyond that, no. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The original edit summary makes it sound like the article was created with content from Llama because editors there agreed that it didn't belong as part of the main article. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then perhaps "Llamas in popular culture" would be an appropriate name for such a list. Even so, I question notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The original edit summary makes it sound like the article was created with content from Llama because editors there agreed that it didn't belong as part of the main article. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, listcruft. Hut 8.5 09:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Could be moved into the Llama article as an "In popular culture" or whatever they are called section, at least some of it. Various bits could be merged into more relevant articles. Matt - TheFearow 10:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unencyclopedic trivia. Popular culture references aren't automatically notable. --Charlene 10:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Maybe we need "Wikipedia:Notability (Llamas)"! Adrian M. H. 17:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Llamas in popular culture and keep DHowell 03:19, 6 June 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.