Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of words
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of words[edit]
I asked about this on the Village Pump, and one person said it should be AFD'd, and the other thought this structure was helpful for navigation as described at Wikipedia:List guideline. I thought this article would be a good test case to see if these should be transwikied to Wiktionary. Others in Category:Lists of words may also be good candidates for transwiking. Beland 08:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- -ism, where the list of -isms link redirects to has a suffixes navigation template as do all the other articles in the series. This list provides no additional information not already included in the related articles and is in fact less complete than the template. The categories mentioned are not entirely relevant to the lists in question. Delete - Mgm|(talk) 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In case this is kept at least rename to "list of lists of ..." Pavel Vozenilek 22:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Personally don't think the sub-lists are encyclopedic either, at least not by any definition of encyclopedia I have ever read. --Darkfred Talk to me 01:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but deny test-case The presense of the 'sufix' template means a poorly linked to article listing sufixes is not needed. However this is a terrible test case for the catagory and the lists within. As already stated on the village pump, these are access/navigation articles. If you navigate through Lists of words to -logy, for example, you will then be presented with such things as Codicology, Palynology, Sociology and Philology - all good articles in their own right. In many respects it is as if the articles within were judged on name alone, and not on their actual contents and WP:LIST.
- 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.