Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of autological words (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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

List of autological words

 * List of autological words was nominated for deletion on 2006-02-28. The result of the discussion was "keep".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/List of autological words.


 * Delete or Revise to subsume all trivial categories into general headings (per Arvedui's suggestion). This list is meaningless, since hundreds of extremely trivial words can fit into this category. For example non-human is on the list. Infinite words can go in along those lines, all of them trivial, e.g. non-automotive, etc. It's almost as bad as having a list of rational numbers or words that start with S.
 * If the list is kept and revised, I think that the whole "depending on context" section should go; it's just as trivial (Sung-if sung) and doesn't really say much about the words themselves.JudahH 06:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC) revised JudahH 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * no. the "depending on context" section is good. in that context, they are then autological, they are valid examples. but i dont really see how "non-human" qualifies as a discription of a word. thats like saying "gill-less" is a description of a human. so then non-human also cannot be selfdescriptive. "Maybe limit to those for which the opposite could conceivably be true for a word", suggested by Lecontejohn should do, since only that is effectively discriptive--Lygophile 14:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly what I mean--the plethora of valid but trivial examples is exactly what I think is the problem with this list. JudahH 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The adjectives here are actually used to refer to words. "Non-human" and other trivial examples are not generally used to refer to words. This is an interesting and useful list. - Sikon 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-human is currently an actual word on the list, as is inanimate. If you wanted to exclude the infinite trivial examples of that sort, that might make the list more interesting, but it would be hard to justify that, since they do conform to the definition of autological, despite being utterly trivial.JudahH 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the list as it stands is composed mainly of trivial examples, or that it will inevitably come to be dominated by them, despite the fact that virtually infinite trivial examples may exist. If you're concerned about the latter happening, then it would be enough to add a single-line entry to cover something like "all negative adjectives, such as non-purple, etc..." or perhaps add a short intro suggesting that people try to keep the entries "interesting". Currently the list is a concise, useful, effective and perfectly harmless demonstration of an obscure linguistic phenomenon, which is composed of far more interesting examples than not, and I think killing the article to save it from potential triviality is like killing a patient to save him from possibly catching the flu. --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Doesn't seem like encyclopedic content to me. While cute and interesting, it doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Wickethewok 14:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete more interesting than the endless parade of "Lists of randomly cool shit", but still not encyclopedic. Danny Lilithborne 02:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this list is any less encyclopedic than, say, the Lists of career and job titles (and no I'm not calling for that one to be deleted either!). Lists in general can always be argued to be "un-encyclopedic" by themselves, but they still serve some useful functions (or why would people want to write them?), for example in collecting illustrative examples of a phenomenon without bogging down the actual article on the topic. --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as listcruft. AgentPeppermint 15:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no one would search for this meshach 19:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you can't possibly know what all people would or wouldn't search for (or link to!). --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In fairness, there is a link to it from Grelling-Nelson paradox.JudahH 00:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Maybe limit to those for which the opposite could conceivably be true for a word - i.e. remove category errors. Lecontejohn 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * i think that would be a prerequisite for something to actually qualify as discriptive, hence also as autological.--Lygophile 14:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong/Speedy Keep per the previous VfD discussion. I don't see that anything has changed in the 8 months between then and now, and the result back then was overwhelmingly to Keep. Listcruft rationale was soundly rejected in that discussion as well. --Arvedui 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not that anything has changed; the problem with the earlier nomination is that it was nominated by someone who voted keep; therefore the case for deletion was never made to begin with. For what it's worth, I thought this was a useful list as well, until I realized how trivial the category autological was (basically all negative descriptions are autological, for a start). That is what I see as the important point, and it wasn't brought up at all in the previous discussion. JudahH 20:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect, you may be giving the act of nomination too much credit here... While the first nomination was made pre-emptively, it still resulted in a virtually unanimous vote to Keep, and I doubt it was the lack of a preamble calling the list pointless and trivial that determined that outcome--indeed many of the reasons people have voted Delete in this round were explicitly refuted in the last (listcruft, pointlessness, no-search, etc). Again, I grant that there are many trivial examples to be found, but it's easy enough (trivial, even!) to include them in general terms so as not to bog down the list as a whole while keeping the interesting part available for those who might want it. While this round of voting looks to me like No Concensus leaning towards Delete, I'm disappointed by how little weight is being given to the really overwhelming Keep vote granted earlier to what is essentially the identical list. --Arvedui 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you may have a point about including them in general terms. That might actually be a good way to solve it. I'll change me vote. (Let just add, though, that it's not only negatives that are trivial. Practically the whole "depending on contexts" is, as well.) If you take out all the trivial examples, there isn't much left of the list... JudahH 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. `'mikkanarxi 21:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * definite Keep, though probably it needs to be revised or mover to the wiktionaries apendices (as sugested when it was nominated for deletion before). its either an examples list, or a wiktionary thing. on the other hand, there are probably much more silly and trivial lists on wikipedia. and the risk of triviality on this page is no arguement, as that doesnt make the artical itself less desirable or encyclopedic.--Lygophile 14:23, 9 November 2006 (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.