Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin phrases (full) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Enigmamsg 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Latin phrases (full)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Citing WP:SPINOUT, For non-mainspace articles, consider splitting and transcluding into the split parts. This is a mainspace article, and transclusion is not an option. w umbolo  ^^^  22:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. We already have lists of Latin phrases listed alphabetically (ie List of Latin phrases (A). This list is just an amalgamation of all the phrases and duplicates content that already exists. The other option is to keep this one and delete the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This humongous list has been properly split up into sublists and delanda est. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, or in the spirit of the page, servandus est numerus. This list has actually been nominated for deletion four times in the past (see here and here, not included above), and on the last occasion was speedily kept per WP:SNOWBALL, with hardly anybody voting to delete it.  As a matter of fact, the list clearly states that it consists of the individual contents of (currently) twenty individual pages (on the previous occasion, it seems to have been divided into three), the contents of which were transcluded.  However, since Latin phrases can, like English phrases, be worded differently, begin with different words depending on what someone thinks is important, or be easily confused (especially by non-Latin speakers), it makes a great deal of sense to be able to search for them in a single list; not to mention it provides an easy way to look for familiar phrases that might or might not have a Latin origin, or for which the correct or most familiar Latin is unknown (you can't use a Latin dictionary for that as easily).  It would have been more difficult to do so without this article with the individual contents divided into three separate pages, and it would be far less useful now that one would have to search through twenty when one isn't sure what the exact phrase is.  So really, this page is perfectly useful, and deleting it produces no benefit whatever to readers.  P Aculeius (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * w umbolo  ^^^  12:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume that you mean that users can simply use a search window to find what they're looking for, which simply proves that you've never needed to spend time browsing through a list of phrases to find what you're looking for because you don't know exactly what it is. But as you couldn't be bothered to reply with words, that could simply be my tendency to ascribe rational meaning to the otherwise inexplicable again.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And while I think the above point is still valid, I apologize for the hostile tone, having had some time to reconsider it. P Aculeius (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't know when an editing guideline, here the subsection WP:SPINOUT that is part of Article size, became a WP:DEL-REASON (policy). The list was kept in 2005 (the list was at List of Latin phrases and was unsplit), it was kept again in 2007, and it was WP:SNOW early closed as keep in 2008 when the list was at List of Latin phrases (full), looked like this and did contain transclusions. I do not see what has changed, and I do not see an explicit rule against transclusion, let alone one that supports a deletion rationale. Sam Sailor 18:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sam. I don't see how this article fits under any deletion criteria. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep If this were an article separate from the various lists of Latin phrases listed alphabetically (e.g., List of Latin phrases (A)), one could make an argument that this article was unneeded, & it causes a maintenance problem because it could not be kept synchronized with the other lists of Latin phrases. However, this is not an independent list, but a transclusion of these other lists. Maybe it is redundant to have a "Full" list & shorter lists for each letter. However, that is an issue of User Interface design, an issue the nominator fails to usefully address; citing a guideline without explaning how it applies does not convince. -- llywrch (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Sam and Llywrch. It is beneficial, doesn't have a viable delete reason, and without better arguments than have been seen in the other AfDs (and rejected) this one seems to add nothing new, or, summa summarum, questio quid iuris?. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if WP:SPINOUT was a policy (it isn't, it's just a guideline), the fact that it says splitting and transcoding is an option for a non-mainspace article does not forever foreclose the possibility of doing so in mainspace. We're doing it here, and it seems to be a benefit for the reader without hurting anything. Vadder (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - per all Keepers, especially llywrch and Nosebagbear. Lists are in mainspace, but are treated a little differently than regular articles as they are a different type of page. It's easier to find all instances of a certain Latin word on this page, for a variation on P Aculeius' theme. Everything else has been said. I was surprised to see the notice on the Full List when I opened it after spending some time on List E. Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2018 (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.