Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-ist


 * 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 move to Wiktionary and delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

-ist

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is one of the most ridiculous lists as may be in wikipedia. For every occupation, political flavor, philosophical school, artictic trend, religious figure or sect, and whats not there is the corresponding "-ist", tens of thousands of them. `'Míkka 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Move to Wiktionary. Liransh 17:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not pointless but clearly should be moved to Wiktionary not here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This made me laugh, well at least the this is one of the most ridiculous lists as may be in wikipedia LOL. I agree though, definitely either move to wictionary, or delete as wikipedia is not a dictionary -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. Compiled similar as a fifth-grade homework assignment (dumber guy managed to find more than me, though!). --Dhartung | Talk 19:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wiktionary already has an article on the suffix. -- Charlene 19:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki everything in the Category:Suffixes tree to wiktionary. (Is this an alternate navigation scheme? It has a list of articles...) 132.205.93.83 23:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - people try much to hard to create articles. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletion-"ist". Trivial list.  Useight 07:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. Is 'vacationist' really a word?  Eliminator JR  Talk  14:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- "Grammar" comes under encyclopedia, definitely not under dictionary. No dictionary mentions anything about grammer. Also consider other articles(added table), how these can be accommodated in wikitionary? These suffixes add some tone to the words which needs to be described properly, "description" comes under encyclopedia. There are many article in wikipedia about grammar, i need not mention. As for list of words, they can be moved to wikitionary, but only list, i think even this is uncalled for. user:Lara_bran 08:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Words in the list points to related article in encyclopedia, do not say their "meaning", should not be moved. Dictionary is limited only to "meaning".(Somebody did all this with sufficient effort, please dont laugh at nor ridicule valuable contributions.) user:Lara_bran 09:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep with revisions. The word listing should be deleted; a cross-link to Wiktionary is needed; the main body should relate to an encyclopedic treatment of the suffix (sans list). --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.