Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Popular Articles Feature

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most Popular Articles Feature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not of any encyclopedic merit, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Some content should be merged to the appropriate articles about websites, but I cannot imagine a use for this article. Eyrian 10:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say its completeley useless, if its merged with the appropriate article and cut down drastically; it does go into far too much detail. Otherwise, however, it probably has very little use as it is. Monkeymox 10:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per reason of nomination. Eaomatrix 14:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Plus, the title of the article is misleading, as someone may think that it is about the most popular articles on WP, and not just a generic feature on several Web sites. Caknuck 15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this is encyclopedic for its educational value on the state of the art in monitoring search activity although the lists may not be encyclopedic. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant original research and synthesis. There are probably web-designer publications that have written about this (I know some blogs have), but without such sources all of the conclusions are synthesis. --Dhartung | Talk 20:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteI see no value, no assertion of notability, no sources apart from the articles themselves. JodyB _talk 21:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Seems a fairly trivial article with no merit --Fritzpoll 23:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- wikipedia articles are not instructional manuals. This belongs in Wikibooks if anywhere. --Adhall 00:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no encyclopedic merit whatsoever. RFerreira 04:31, 14 May 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.