Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Isms

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 Nonconsensuism (although categorizing might make sense, since it's unannotated). ~ trialsanderrors 06:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Isms[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This expansive unreferenced list of unexplained terms is one of the most dictionary-esque of the English word lists currently in mainspace, but it is not alone. Seeking to avoid the hazards of bundling, more may be listed pending the results of this discussion once it is possible to gauge consensus about where dictionaries stop and encyclopedias begin in this context. Serpent's Choice 11:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I'm even sure this is strictly a dictionary-related issue, since the terms aren't even defined. I see it as a collection of words which are related etymologically but not in any other more meaningful way. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary or delete. Either way, it doesn't belong here. MER-C 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Transwiki) - per WP:NOT since Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a collection of things. Jayden54 14:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete very "dictionary-esque" indeed. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. (aeropagitica) 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a random collection of information Dragomiloff 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Its not random at all, its a very tight category and very useful for navigation. Its not a dictionary entry at all, its a navigation aide. This is part of the project on vocabulary and phonology under this category: Category:Suffixes Just like -itis and -phobia. This is a navigation aide to existing Wikipedia entries not covered by a category. The article also appears in the Finnish and Swedish Wikipedia: fi:Luettelo ismeistä sv:Lista över ismer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no point to this list and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Besides imagine the endless other lists- words that end in -tion -ive etc. Then the same in other languages... One a lighter (and slightly juvenille) note, I never thought I would see the following sentence used in a near-encyclopedic manner: "This list should not include...jism". Brilliant! WJBscribe 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Big Haz. Indiscriminate list (though, it's somehow discriminate enough to declare which words not to include) of similar words. And, if for no other reason, per Big Haz's use of the $10.00 word "etymologically." Wavy G 04:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't know how close I came to saying "entomologically" to start with :) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An -ism can potentially be formed from any adjective. OBriain 04:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True but not all would be worthy of an article or be found in a Google search. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps lists of -tion(s), -ive(s), and ally(s) are in order because there are some of those sets that are worthy of articles? :P OBriain 06:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a very useful navigation aid, actually. Isms are often key terms in broader subjects, such as philosophy, medicine, politics, etc. And because these subjects are often very scholastic or esoteric in nature, remembering these terms can be very difficult. So what does one do when he can't quite remember an ism? He tries to look it up. Unfortunately, entering "ism" into Wikipedia's search box only turns up entries in which ism is separated by a space or punctuation mark; it does not return unpunctuated words in which "ism" is part of the spelling. Powers of recognition are much stronger than powers of recall, so being able to look at a list like this would be valuable because the reader may recognize the term he has forgotten once he sees it, thereby curing him of the dreadful tip of the tongue phenomenon. Don't you just hate when that happens? It's like right there, but you just can't quite think of the word. This is especially stressful if it is a subject you need to learn more about for a school or work assignment. This type of list is a Godsend for people suffering from this affliction, and we all do, from time to time. And because the entries are linked, you can check to see if you've recognized the term correctly by clicking on the link and reading its introduction. It's a harmless list which has at least one good use, so there's no harm in keeping it around. And who knows, someone may come up with ways to improve this list in the future, such as sorting it by type of ism. Just some ideas. I hope these help. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 07:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteism per Obriaianism. Dannism Lilithbornism 22:41, 7 Decemberism 2006 (UTCism)
Keep- at least in my opinion. This has a lot of info I can't get anywhere else (right now I'm using it to make some significant additions to the List of ideologies named after people), and if I lose it, I won't be able to add to some lists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.172.233.90 (talk • contribs)
Keep A useful navigarional tool. `'mikkanarxi 04:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm tired of saying this yet once more, but lists that people use and can maintain should be kept. Why should anyone else want to remove them? DGG 08:22, 10 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.