Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proverbial pairs


 * 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   09:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

List of proverbial pairs
Indiscriminate list of X and/or Y phrases Carlossuarez46 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. Normally I have no problem with lists, but this goes too far. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Nintendude list. Danny Lilithborne 20:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's easy for this reaction to become a reflex. But we must fight that, and consider each article on its merits as an article, irrespective of the original author.  For a good reason for avoiding the reflex, witness the fact that this article was actually created by, and that  has never edited it, causing that rationale to completely fall apart. Uncle G 10:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a metaphor; Nintendude made a lot of ridiculous lists early on. But I guess I'll go back to calling it "listcruft". :/ Danny Lilithborne 02:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete come on, this is taking the.... well, anyway, lets just say it's totally unnecessary. - Blood red sandman 21:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash; Wikipedia may not be an indiscriminate collection of information but our policy does not address this kind of list yet.  Our current proscribed lists are:   1) Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, 2) Travel guides, 3) Memorials, 4) Instruction manuals, 5) Internet guides, 6) Textbooks & annotated texts, and 7) Plot summaries. So we are not dealing with something that is strictly excluded by existing policy. This list has been edited by over 20 people before nomintated for deletion&mdash;the people have spoken with their fingers&mdash;it is useful because someone is using it&mdash;keep it. And perhaps we need to address at the Wikipolicy level. Williamborg (Bill) 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. The number of editors has no bearing at all.  That's an utterly silly metric to be using.  We've had unencyclopaedic articles edited by many more people than that.  Furthermore, we have plenty of guidelines for the appropriate topics for lists, given at Lists (stand-alone lists).  Please base your arguments on our Policies and guidelines rather than upon fallacious "Lots of people have edited it, therefore we must keep it." arguments. Uncle G 01:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree one should base one's arguments on Policies and guidelines and I can see that you feel strongly about this topic, but your arguments were not specific. Specifically I'd appreciate a quote from Lists (stand-alone lists) that precludes this type of list. I see nothing there that would guide this discussion in one direction of another. Thanks in advance - Williamborg (Bill) 04:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is you, who are putting forward the keep/delete opinion, that should be quoting Lists (stand-alone lists). And there's plenty of guidance there, and things that one can base a rationale upon.  Please actually read the page. Uncle G 10:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thank you for pointing out Lists (stand-alone lists) After reading Lists (stand-alone lists), and I readily acknowledge I don't read with the wisdom and insight of an administrator such as yourself, I find it of little assistance in providing insight whether this is valid or not. I still have the impression that we are not dealing with something that is strictly excluded by existing policy (nor for that matter mandated by current policy). That said, it is not my intent to incur the enmity of an administrator, so I'll leave this discussion quietly. I do appreciate your efforts to educate me on Wikipolicy. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Administrators are just ordinary users with access to some extra tools. Many of the guidelines are in Lists (stand-alone lists).  You need to be asking "Is this list's scope either too narrowly or too broadly construed to be useful?  Is it a set complement?  Are there sources from which this list can be populated?  Is original research the only way to populate this list?  Is this list inherently non-neutral in scope?" Uncle G 20:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.--RMHED 22:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this list has potential. I don't think this is a topic that's going to attract much cruft (unlike List of Nintendo characters which was miraculously kept). Irongargoyle 00:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's already mostly cruft, no citations of any usage either proverbially or idiomatically; bacon & eggs usually refers to a pig-and-chicken-ova meal, and pairing Steve Jobs with Steve Wozniak is just a fact, you could put any (and every) two famous collaboraters or antagonists together and make a pair: Sacco and Vanzetti, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, Hitler and Stalin, Hitler and Churchill, or as a "contrast" just some nice people with some less savory ones: Mother Theresa and Jeffrey Dahmer. There's no objective criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete original research, no indication here of what makes a pair "proverbial" rather than merely descriptive. Gazpacho 04:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article links to proverb and idiom in its very first sentence. Uncle G 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I started the list, in fact I categorized and started all lists in the Lists of pairs page. I did it at a time when Wikipedia:Category was not yet conceptualized, and there was just one long standalone list List of famous pairs. Extracted the content for all lists from the master list. I haven't visited these lists lately, but I do see a lot of worthy contributions made. If this list is not for wikipedia, where should it go ? Wiktionary ? Proverbial pairs are some kind of information. If the list has become indiscriminate, control it, if trivial, remove the entries, if the definitions are not clear, define them better. Jay 19:53, 30 August 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.