Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of images/Chicks
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:29, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Poorly named, no pages link to it, and just generally a bad idea. - dcljr 09:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, poorly named, no identifying subject, but images cuold be placed elsewhere if there was supporting text. Alexs letterbox 09:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. You bet it's a bad idea. Even if it were named "List of images/Women" it would still be a bad idea. Oops, forgot to sign! I'm: --Angr 15:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, it's not a bad idea, but since it isn't for anything, there is no need for it. And the wording is a bit on the poor side. Inter 12:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or rename to images/TotallyHotNakedChicks Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Each image is presently used in at least one article. Totally refactor to include Image:Chicks.jpg and Image:More_chicks.jpg... or delete. Samaritan 14:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Sillyness by an anon. -- Infrogmation 19:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. There are probably a hundred thousand websites with images of naked women on them. Statistically at least one of them will deal with just free images. Thryduulf 23:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Joke. Mikkalai 23:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. And that's all they could come up with. ÅrУnT†∈ 23:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, silliness by anon. --Idont Havaname 02:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. ROTFLMAO. Gamaliel 02:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. But before deleting, add Theresa Knott's great pair of tits. (Or is that a pair of great tits?) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Those are a pair of great tits aren't they? Rje 04:16, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't VfD take long enough to load already without the added weight of JPEG imagery? GRider\talk 18:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. So silly. Why? Why? TomTheHand 05:48, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.