Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern conveniences

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, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern conveniences

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Unreferenced and pointless list of impossibly wide scope. It seems that basically anything that's ever been invented or developed in modern times could be added here. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While esoteric, this list will prove increasingly valuable to scholars and others doing research on convenience. Countless innovations are neither modern nor conveniences. Wax seals, divining rods, candlelight, philology, sundials, Muzak, hardened plastic containers, and nation-states are all examples of innovations that are not modern, not convenient, or both. Doctortrends (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. Way too general and vague to be of much use. What does SALAT stand for? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "Stand-alone lists - appropriate topics" I think. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above described reasons. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable, vague, pointless. Could include almost anything in Wikipedia. --causa sui (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could include Wikipedia itself, come to think of it... Bencherlite ^Talk 16:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list criteria are way to general and the scope is impossibly large.Rorshacma (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2012 (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.