Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional people with prank call names

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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional people with prank call names[edit]

non-notable list of two barely connected names, unverifiable and uncyclopedic. At the very best move to wikibooks humor section, but since there has been no interest in writing this article since it's creation, probably better to just delete it. Author of article had a few months to respond to charges that the article be made encyclopedic somehow. See WP: NOT 1.7, 2, have these two names contributed significantly to the topic of amusing names? Are they famous? Lotusduck 21:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Good topic for a list, but not sure why it was renamed just prior to nom. -- JJay 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed it to help it, actually. It's a list of prank call names, not a list of fictional people known for their names. Arguably, all characters are known for their show, not name. Secondly, the two names listed don't appear to be characters at all, but just prank call names used in some capacity. Don't assume bad faith, I didn't title it "two prank call names" after all. Nobody has expanded this in any way in the four months since its' creation. If by being longer it becomes encyclopedic, how is it going to get longer in the first place? Lotusduck 23:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you wanted to help it for 8 minutes before tagging for AfD? -- JJay 23:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did. I'll always try everything I can to make an article accurate and encyclopedic before trying nominating it for deletion, and what's the point in waiting around before making a decision when it's about a four month dead page? Why, do you think that those two prank call names are better titled as characters with names known for being amusing? Lotusduck 23:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 23:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is humor, not encyclopedic content. Is there a policy that says "Wikipedia is not a joke"? --Thunk 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn Incognito 01:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good grief, this is supposed to be encyclopedic? Jokecruft and listcruft in one place. --Calton | Talk 02:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmanageable, unverifiable, unencyclopedic -- Krash 17:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Snaxe920 04:10, 23 January 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.