Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English Word Suggestions


 * 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' -- JForget  00:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

List of English Word Suggestions

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic, especially given that the list is currently empty and the article subject is so nebulously defined. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete We already have these. They're called Sniglets. Anyway, useless list for sure -- no set criteria. I could add IIIUIII just because I have a tendency to get five or six I's in a row on my rack when I play Scrabble. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's very little possibility for this to ever become an encyclopedic article considering the intended content.  As long as it doesn't have any set criteria (and I can't think of any, although I'm open to suggestions), it's too open and anyone could add anything they want.  Celarnor Talk to me  00:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if you would edit it. Also, in the future it should state the array of writters or simply common people's ideas and suggestions for the english language, which is something very popular in society. I can find that to be a very useful resource. Piepeople (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for people to make up their own words. This has no encyclopedic merit. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Would it be better if it was called "List of Supported Snigglets"? I would probably re-do the whole page if it was. What do you think? Piepeople (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because there would still be no set criteria for this list, and people could add stuff like "Yakka foob mog" or IIIUIII if they wanted. This list serves no purpose whatsoever in an encyclopedia. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I just found a website that was actually linked to the sniglet page, consisting of an entire sniglet database. I agree that my page should be deleted now. Piepeople (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, Piepeople, but most of us don't feel that the English language needs to be improved... or that a bunch of "mouse potatoes" (sorry, not a word I coined) are the ones to do it. I think that the concept of Wikipedia is to make it easier to understand that which has already been written.  Maybe you can start your own webpage somewhere.  Somewhere else. Mandsford (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. J I P  | Talk 04:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Ill-defined list unlikely to become properly useful or encyclopedic. Pigman ☿  05:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a suggestion box for the English language. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR and per TenPoundHammer.--Berig (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, one of the strangest "articles" I have yet come across on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a suggestion box. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete We have plenty of on this sort of thing already - see Meaning of Liff. This article is not worth merging. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In all fairness, the creator of the page, Piepeople, has acknowledged that it should be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per TenPoundHammer and WP:NFT. Wikipedia is not the place for you to list your personal snigets, Wikipedia is not your webspace and is not a dictionary. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 19:57, 10 May 2008 (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.