Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns for people


 * 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. Some keep votes were explicitly "weak keep," others dependent on sources being provided, but none have been during the course of this AfD and I think it safe to say none will. Chick Bowen 03:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

List of collective nouns for people

 * — (View AfD)

I freely acknowledge that collective nouns exist -- gaggle of geese, murder of crows, and all that. However, this particular list appears to be filled with nothing but spurious and/or joke collective nouns. For example, a group of actors is called a "cast"? Not hardly; only if they're all working on the same production as actors. A "faffing" of geeks? Come on. Please see also the recently-closed-as-delete Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns for objects and concepts. Powers T 15:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete for many reasons. Its original research, much of it is wrong and some of it seems to be a hoax.  Furthermore, something like this would be more appropriate, if it were actually true, for Wiktionary.  --The Way 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete some of these are legitimate, but it has essentially the same problems as Articles for deletion/List of collective nouns for objects and concepts and invites OR. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- I don't think it's cool to treat Wikipedia as a repository for humour. This is not the sort of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia. Is there another Wiki for this sort of thing. And by the way, how come "a Wunch of Bankers" isn't on it? Reyk  YO!  19:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete THis is an impossibly long list. Just nip it in the bud Cnriaczoy42 22:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the article and remove the chaff. The article began seriously enough, but it has accumulated some entries along the way. Revert to the best version and resume editing from there. Fg2 07:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A proposal Can I ask everyone to remove five entries that they don't like? Then we can reevaluate it. Fg2 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; This list has some cruft that needs to be removed, but it is valuable. Val42 05:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fg2 FirefoxMan 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not an indescriminate list of information and all that jazz. Deathawk 02:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: I think such a list is justified in Wikipedia, as there are a number of other similar articles: List of collective nouns for non-human mammals, List of collective nouns for birds, List of collective nouns for reptiles and amphibians, List of collective nouns for fish, invertebrates, and plants. However, the entirety of this is uncited.  I propose a quick google check on each term, delete anything clearly made up or non-notable, and find academic sources for anything left standing.&mdash;Perceval 22:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to a Wiktionary category and delete. Wiktionary collects words and groups them just fine, why do we need to do it here too?  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 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.