Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups of four

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless criterion, giving a random collection of things. I've also nominated groups of 6 (ongoing) and 7 (deleted). Delete this one too. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wildly unmaintanable. —This user has left wikipedia 00:59 2006-02-02
• Delete Ridiculous but sort of fun. This could go on forever. Hdstubbs 04:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone. Royboycrashfan 05:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since it's just a list of lists. (Signed: J.Smith) 06:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbustoo 06:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ohhh, I wanted to be the fifth vote, not fair! linas 06:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fun but ridiculously pointless... Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 10:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to list of musical quartets (retain the artist and music section) and delete the rest of it. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per all. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to list of musical quartets I shall not have worked in vain ! - Mrbluesky| 14:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to list of musical quartets per above. ←Hob 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is now. A list of musical quartets could conceivably be useful, but as it is now, it's naming bands which happen to have four members, which everyone already knows have four members. Makemi 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as list for list's sake. Having an article on four member bands is also a horrible idea. As it's probably the most common number for rock bands, it would be impossibly long and difficult to maintain. Not to mention useless. -R. fiend 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as utterly indiscriminate collection of information. Usually I'm actually somewhat in favor of lists but not this one. Cyde Weys 05:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, list created only for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups of six and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups of seven. Stifle 16:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my vote on the sixes. Carlossuarez46 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. And then create "List of groups of three" and append thereto, as articles involving collections to be deleted, "List of groups of four", "List of groups of six", and "List of groups of seven". Joe 05:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:16, 4 February 2006 (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.