Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of three-letter English words (2nd nomination)

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.

List of three-letter English words[edit]

The result was Delete. Per |. Too bad - was fun. Can not top AfD num one, tho' one can but try. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how this page was not deleted. It (seems to me to) clearly fall under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and past votes seem to have confirmed that the majority of individuals did not want this page. There was a debate as of April 2006 which arrived at no consensus, so I would respectfully request to open this back up for inquiry. Djma12 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I simply do not see the utility of this list. BlueValour 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or send to wiktionary. Lists of real English 2- and 3-letter words are useful for Scrabble players, and are standard components of most scrabble dictionaries. So it's a topic that has a reason for existing other than as trivia or for the mental exercise of making a list. Remember that AfD is not a vote, so what "the majority of individuals" had wanted is somewhat irrelevant. DMacks 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this list is of no practical use to Scrabble players who would use Official Scrabble Words. BlueValour 19:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. It doesn't belong here. MER-C 05:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki if applicable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki (if needed), then delete. Although DMacks suggested "Keep" above, the provided justifications are precisely why we should not keep this list. Such as list is an important part of Scrabble (and other) dictionaries, but that is one of the canon things that Wikipedia is not. Serpent's Choice 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki assuming Wiktionary has lists of words. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of words on Wikipedia is a category of words on Wiktionary, and Wiktionary has many categories of words. Uncle G 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to category? Maybe this could be a viable Category:Three-letter English words (thanks for the idea, WP:Listcruft) either here or on wiktionary. The list could be considered encyclopediac content as an outgrowth/subpage of the clearly WP-worthy Three letter rule page, but too long to include in that main page. But even if only kept as a category, having something linkable would allow logical research from Three letter rule to the actual words described by that page. DMacks 07:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary is "the lexical companion to Wikipedia", and the way to do this is to link from the encyclopaedia article to a category of words on Wiktionary, such as wikt:Category:English three letter words. There's even a template, {{wiktionarycat}} for this very thing. A category of words is unworkable on Wikipedia, because on Wikipedia individual words don't get individual articles. On Wiktionary, however, they do, and a category of words is quite natural. Uncle G 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Keeping this would lay the groundwork for having lists with the potential of covering every single work in the English language. If we keep this then we make it a lot harder to argue against a list of four-letter English words, five-letter, ect. A scary precedent. --The Way 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DMacks deleted my above 'vote' and replaced it with his. I will assume good faith and view this as an accident, I have reposted my voted. --The Way 07:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Majorly sorry about that. DMacks 07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No worries. We all make mistakes (well, 'we' meaning everyone other than myself, since I'm perfect ;) --The Way 07:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del bad! 'tis zip. too bad, not sad. SkierRMH,07:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to help you win Scrabble. Go to WikiHelpYouWinScrabble.org. Danny Lilithborne 09:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to see how quickly some person with more money than sense goes off to register that domain after reading this AfD. :) Orderinchaos78 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and throw in List of one-letter English words and List of two-letter English words. Pure scrabble cruft. MartinDK 10:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has no use, not even on wiktionary. TSO1D 12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not use ful.-- danntm ^T _C 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless. FirefoxMan 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is useless and blatantly ridiculous, except maybe as an aid in speech therapy. I'm positively certain that speech therapists have far better practice exercises anyway than a random collection of words that happen to have a certain number of letters (and several of which I'm not even sure are actual words). Orderinchaos78 17:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. I don't believe this could serve useful to anyone in an encyclopedia. Seems pointless to me. Might also motivate others to create similar types of listings which may clog up wikipedia with useless material if it were to stay. Bungle44 18:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useful for crossword puzzles and Scrabble, but better suited for an almanac than an encyclopedia.Coemg e nus 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly pointless. Incidentally, the rules of Scrabble forbid the use of any source to find words, only to confirm their existence, for which a dictionary is the preferred text. If we retain this article then we get List Of One letter Words (admittedly short) List Of Two Letter Words, List Of Words Beginning With A, and so forth, and then we turn into a dictionary. We already have a dictionary. --Anthony.bradbury 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Linguistics-related encyclopedic article. Scrabble use is irrelevant. The article is legitimate and does not violate WP:NOT#IINFO. --Gabi S. 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary is also official policy. Uncle G 15:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is in line with the quoted policy. It begins with a good definition of the topic, and proceeds to list all the three-letter English words, without defining them (because, yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary...) There is a difference between a dictionary definition of a word and a useful list of words. --Gabi S. 07:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is, but neither having the style of a good encyclopedic article, nor being "useful", will make it good. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki then Delete unlike the one-letter words article, this one has legitimate English words. That said it doesn't belong here so move it to the wiktionary. Koweja 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have also proposed similar, but even less useful, 3-letter lists at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:TLAs from AA0 to DZ9. Most of these are not proper words. BlueValour 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT an aid to cheating at Scrabble... - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- which is what I voted last time. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --G Rutter 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under various criteria of WP:NOT. As Uncle G has pointed out, Scrabble players looking for a resource are appropriately served by Wiktionary, specifically wikt:Category:English three letter words. -- Satori Son 16:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this already exists on Wiktionary, as the category posted above. Orpheus 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ditto SweetGodiva 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I (also) agree with Uncle G. —Encephalon 08:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Mikeeilbache r 23:45, 19 December 2006 (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.