Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin phrases (A–E)

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. Tone 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin phrases (A–E)[edit]

Delete these articles are vestiges of a prior scheme of breaking down the rather large list, and are neither useful nor likely search terms (any more than A-D or A-F, which won't be found) - the problem with G6-ing these as ought to be done is that many articles have links to these clugey titles and a bot should clean those up, which can happen after deletion. Note: I am not proposing the deletion of any lists themselves, the community has already spoken to keep them, I am just trying to get rid of these non-useful "dab" pages Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Shoester (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki I think to WikiQuote... maybe Wiktionary, probably wikiquote. I think they took all the proverbs... 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand--they can most of them reasonably have an article here--there is enough to say in almost all cases. This is a good guide to the ones that need to be written. All of them are phrases one might well wish to browse, and browsing is enough of a justification for a list. DGG (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand this comment. The nominated pages are dab-only, and do not contain any actual phrases. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, though who's going to take care of fixing the incoming links? DGG and the IP must not have looked at the actual articles that are proposed for deletion. The pages with the latin phrases themselves are not up for deletion, just these three disambiguation pages. Jfire (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone apparently made an ad hoc decision to split each of these lists into two sub-lists, since they got big. So, we should go through the pro forma process and delete these articles, which are basically supersets of the now split-off lists. We'll also need to clean up any incoming links to these lists, as well, and there are several. Caveat emptor. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this link page as per nom. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete these disambig pages but keep the pages with phrases in. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these useless dab pages per nominator. Of course this doesn't include the pages with the actual phrases on them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cludgy stuff, I just stumbled on it while searching for a phrase, and it only managed to confuse me and slow me. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:05, 9 January 2009 (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.