Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns by collective term A-K


 * 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. Please take any Transwiki discussions to the appropriate talk page. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

List of collective nouns by collective term A-K

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

List of collective noun definitions. Without sources. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This should probably be a combined AfD with the other half, but is there a reason other than being unsourced to delete this? Does it violate some part of our guidelines for lists? I suppose I'd like to see some sourced prose at the beginning to place the usage of such words into a greater context, but I'm interested in hearing what other policy reasons there are for deleting.  Leebo  T / C  13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response It violates Wikipedia is not a dictionary. So, delete Tomj 13:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm unfamiliar with the status of word lists, but I was sure I knew of at least some word lists, as well as phrase lists. I'm not bringing up WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I suppose I'll look at such lists differently in the future.  Leebo  T / C  13:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki those that can be sourced to Wiktionary. Delete the rest. Will (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary- that's what it is there for Lurker  (said · done) 17:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverified and probably unverifiable. I used to work at Oxford University Press and they have a big department that tracks down sources and verifies this sort of thing. The results of this endeavour are commonly known as dictionaries. WP is not a dictionary and this list is not up to dictionary standards and probably never could be. andy 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my reasoning at Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns by subject I-Z. --Fang Aili talk 14:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep until there is a better place. Wiktionary does not accept these lists. That printed books include this is no reason WP shouldnt. Other encyclopedia cover this too. DGG' (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete WP is not a dictionary or a list of words Corpx 20:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an annotated list of closely-related words, otherwise known as a "glossary", as permitted by the stand-alone list guideline. Strong keep if Wiktionary does not accept such lists, which would prove that it does not fail WP:NOT. Also, this should be kept per the WP:CONSENSUS of hundreds of editors who have contributed to all of the collective nouns lists since 2001, most of whom are not being heard from in these discussions. DHowell 03:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per DHowell. Mathmo Talk 23:16, 7 August 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.