This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Close vote (20 to 10) but I'm going to side with delete due to the pointlessness of stuff like this. Woohookitty 08:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of all two-letter combinations[edit]

Non notable, non-encyclopaedic, meaningless collection −Woodstone 21:18:35, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

• keep please this is interesting and wikipedia is not paper Yuckfoo 21:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What possible purpose could this serve? If someone's interested in two-letter combinations then can sit down and think up some themselves. The list has absolutely no encyclopedic value. Soltak | Talk 21:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lists of random combinations are not useful but rather just static. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - Tεxτurε 21:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-encyclopaedic rubbish, and where will it stop, three letter combinations, four letter combinations, ten letter combinations? DV8 2XL 23:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information --Carnildo 23:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I agree that Wikipedia is not paper, I must agree with DV8 2XL. Psy Guy 23:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless, non-encyclopedic exercise. Dottore So 23:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Meaningless Contextless junk - Hahnchen 23:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carnildo. -Splash 23:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to accidentally have voted twice. Oops! -Splash 13:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' as per nom. DES ^(talk) 23:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not-paper is not-an-excuse for not-encyclopedic not-content. -Splash 00:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Shorten to just real words and rename as List of all two-letter words - a far more useful article. Grutness...wha? 08:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless the TLA lists are also deleted. -Sean Curtin 01:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to ask you to reconsider this. I agree with you that the TLA lists should go, also, but that's no reason to vote against your own beliefs just to make a point. Nandesuka 21:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's useful and doesn't violate any policies. --Apyule 05:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep like the list of three-letter abbreviations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. TLAs are common, and even have their own article. This is not a list of all two letter acronyms that mean something, it's a list of all 676 combinations of two letters. WP:NOT an indiscrimnate etc etc etc. Proto t c 10:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is utterly meaningless. Abbreviations or words are one thing, but simple combinations of letters...Shall we create a page for all 17,576 combinations of three letters, all 456,976 combinations of four letters...the approximately eight billion combinations of seven letters? Cmadler 14:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, there are pages for the three leter combinations. --Apyule 16:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • You might want to look at: List of TLA-Dabs, Category: Lists of TLAs, Category: Lists of two-letter combinations. 132.205.3.20 19:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Does anyone notice that almost all of the two letter combinations link to an actual article? The blue links far out number the red links. Sure the applications for this page may be limited, but it is not likely to need much in the way of maintenance and may, conceivably, be of use to someone.Brian Schlosser42 16:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, useful as an index and for navication. If this is deleted, then so should List of all single-letter-single-digit combinations, and TLAs from AAA to DZZ, TLAs from EAA to HZZ, TLAs from IAA to LZZ, TLAs from MAA to PZZ, TLAs from QAA to TZZ, TLAs from UAA to XZZ, TLAs from YAA to ZZZ, List of TLA-Dabs, the categories Category:Lists of two-letter combinations and Category:Lists of two-letter combinations... (like various articles contained in the categories) 132.205.3.20 18:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This could be a useful article, but the more I think about it, the less useful it seems. If someone is searching for a particular two-letter combination, they can just type it in the search box. Having a page with all combinations listed just isn't that useful. In addition, many of the links are redirects or lead to disambiguation pages. Carbonite | Talk 19:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic pointcruft. Nandesuka 21:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Brian Schlosser42. -- DS1953 00:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to wikipedia namespace. As a reader I find it useless. As an editor it may be useful to keep it around. Nabla 01:09:57, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
• Keep, nnn. —RaD Man (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but turn into a disambiguation page - merge all Xx pages with XX and list only XX here. - Tintazul 09:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is nonsense. Why don't we create a list of all possible sequences of integers between 0 and 2005? I hope there is a consensus to delete, and we can go on nominating the pages mentioned above by 132.205.3.20 (except maybe List of TLA-Dabs). KissL 09:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you keep List of TLA-Dabs? It's not anymore or less useful or encyclopedic than any of the other articles. 132.205.44.43 16:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't that one be in Wikipedia namespace? Aquillion 16:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carbonite. If someone is interested in one or more of the meanings of GM, are they going to type "List of all two-letter combinations" in the search box, or, perhaps, "GM"? --Metropolitan90 07:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Wikipedia namespace. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we already have the Quick Index. Titoxd 06:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Now that is a stupid article. (No offense to everyone who voted keep.) Aquillion 07:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because I have found it a useful key for checking out 2 letter combinations. Rich Farmbrough 20:26, 7 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.