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 Delete, has been transwikied. Content can be accessed at wiktionary:Transwiki:List of isms. -- Visviva 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order. Can someone tell me why this is a Science and Technology AfD? Perhaps it is no surprise why no one understands the usefulness of this list?

I move that we go through the process appropriately. If there is a humanities and fine arts category, lets see how the AfD proceeds under it. Gregbard 09:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of isms

Transwiki. Nonencyclopedic: an arbitrary list of totally unrelated things. Its place is an appendix of wiktionary. `'Míkka 18:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Comment This is actually the second deletion discussion; the first was in relation to List of Isms which redirects to List of isms; the first AFD discussion, which ended in "no consensus" → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Isms. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, loosely-associated topics, related only verbally. --Eyrian 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment — Hmm, there appears to be no entry for deletionism. — RJH (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and there is no "ism" at all for compulsive hoarding. `'Míkka 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or transwiki, per arguments below. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are you serious? J-stan ^Talk 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T EVEN THINK OF IT I've been expanding this list for a while now. None of the reasons being given are serious reasons ('aw c'mon' doesn't cut it.) If you do not understand the value of such a compilation please just don't click on it. For people who are trying to study in philosophy, religion, and political science, this list is useful. Gregbard 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you failed to understand: it belongs to wiktionary, see wiktionary:Category:Appendices, in particular, see, e.g., wiktionary:Appendix:-ize_(derived_terms). Please proceed with this collection, but in a sister project. `'Míkka 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well we meet again?! You happen to be screwing up more of my efforts too? The proposal wasn't to move it, it was to delete it. Gregbard 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not write "delete". I wrote "Its place is an appendix of wiktionary." Anyway, I clarified my vote. `'Míkka 23:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Very well then, I appreciate that. Do you think you could be productive on our other issue too? Be well, Gregbard 23:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with revisions - As currently constituted, I agree that this is a dictionary-like article that could move to Wiktionary. However, an annotated list of "isms" as used in religion, philosophy, and political science, is a worthwhile contribution to knowledge. Remove the words that merely happen to end in "ism" (such as absenteeism, botulism, criticism, dwarfism, and journalism), but keep the article as a list of those isms that refer to ideas, belief systems, and related practices (such as absolutism, ageism, cronyism, heliocentrism, and imperialism) and add annotations to the list to briefly explain each ism. --orlady 21:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an exceedingly loose association, which is prohibited under WP:NOT#DIR. --Eyrian 21:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as loose list and Collection of internal links, although I think I'm going to make a copy of it. Useight 21:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes absolutely no sense. No one else should have it on Wikipedia, but as long as I have my copy that's all that matters. Way to go. Gregbard 23:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a navigational aid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. per nom - its place is wiktionary. Bigdaddy1981 23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, not sure how or why ending in 'ism' links concepts together past a lexical distinction. CaveatLector^Talk 23:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Transwiki as WP is not a dictionnary nor a list of loosely-associated topics.--JForget 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. A list of words ending in a particular suffix (and in this case, a hugely prolific one) is great for a dictionary or thesaurus, not an encyclopedia. -ism has too wide a range of meanings to be of any use when linking concepts. Similarly, a list of -tions, -ities, etc. would belong in a dictionary, not here. --Targeman 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable-ism and Wiki-spam-ism --PEAR (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very useful page within the context of pages like Wikipedia:List of glossaries. "Isms" is often a distinct subject in history class. --User:Krator (t c) 11:53, 7 August 2007 (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.