Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To-do 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 of the debate was KEEP. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 02:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To-do list

Seems more approriate for Wikitionary. Not really an important article for Wikipedia. TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not approriate for Wikipedia - just a useless article in general. TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a dictionary definition. Unless there's a rich and varied history of to-do lists out there that I'm unfamiliar with, I can't really see anyone getting a full article out of the topic, either. -- Captain Disdain 07:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important part of project management, also featured on many wikipedians' user pages. Kappa 12:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is an important part of management and it is featured on many Wikipedians' User Pages (including myself), a to-do list simply does not require an encyclopedic entry. There is just not no need for it. TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Research turns up a fair amount of source material on the subject of to-do lists. Keep. Uncle G 20:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It just seems like such a simple straight forward thing that does not need an entry on Wikipedia. TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lots of things are simple and straightforward. They warrant encyclopaedia articles just as this subject does. The argument that both you and Captain Disdain put forward above is that this is a stub with no possibility for expansion. As I said, research shows that that's not the case. Uncle G 21:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, looking at the revised article now, I see that I was clearly wrong. Bad judgement on my part; that was some kind of a knee-jerk reaction. Sorry about that. Changing my vote to keep. -- Captain Disdain 02:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable tool in management. Also, Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of ALL human knowledge, even if it is straight-forward. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, well, I think it is not supposed to be a repository of ALL human knowledge, actually. -- Captain Disdain 02:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Someone could conceivably research this in management books, etc. and write a bit more. —BrianSmithson 21:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. No longer a dictdef but could use some more expansion. Verifiable common time management practice. Capitalistroadster 22:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable personal habit. Klonimus 06:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks for VFD:

Close all discussions as consensus to keep.
Delete VFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI (talk • contribs)

Keep and expand. Not just a dicdef if done right. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; or alternatively, if deleted, remove To-Do List from Wikipedia commmunity portal for consistency.
Endomion 06:15, 5 November 2005 (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.