Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mt (mount)

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mt (mount)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

declined PROD. This is somewhere between a dictionary def and a disambiguation page of partial title matches. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I can't imagine this awkward phrase would be a plausible search term to warrant redirecting to Mount or Mountain --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. The abbreviation already has an entry on Wiktionary here. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Mountain (WP:Redirects are cheap). —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Νot delete(article starter) It could possibly be renamed to mt (geography) or something similar. The article is now linked to 3 WikiProjects and it has been PATROLLED. References are now present for the use of this abbreviation in practice; also the article has been added to some Categories, mainly Geography related. Although some users say that WP is not a Dictionary, it has categories such as Category:Abbreviations and Category:Words; one of the purposes of mt (mount) was to add members to the former.

Moreover the article emphasizes the existence of a whole collection of Redirect Pages corresponding to this abbreviation (such as Mt Everest, Mt McKinley, etc). SoSivr (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is a widely accepted policy, not the opinion of some users. We have articles on certain words that have received extensive critical coverage beyond mere definitions. The fact that you've added categories and project banners does not mean your article is any more or less appropriate. There are probably thousands of mountains named "Mount Something" that can be abbreviated to "Mt. Something", and we don't list all of those because those are Partial title matches, which are not what disambiguation pages are for (should we arbitrarily list a couple of random streets out of the world's countless thousands on St (street)?). Note that mountains can certainly be listed in more meaningful lists, such as those at Lists of mountains. If you want to define abbreviations, you are welcome to do so on Wiktionary, which, as a dictionary, is where those types of definitions are more appropriate. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly unnecessary. There's already an entry at MT (Mt redirects there). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no reason to keep a non-exhaustive list of mountains (all of which use the abbreviation) to highlight an abbreviation that already exists (MT, as per Clarifyfiend. Shashwat986 → talk 16:46, 11 February 2015 (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.