Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms incorporating Hungarian
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 16:09, 4 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
- 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 Transwiki. MBisanz talk 02:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of terms incorporating Hungarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A substantial list, possibly even a useful list, but neither the substantial nature nor the useful nature are reasons to keep it despite the evident hard work put in by the originator. But it is, to me an indiscriminate collection of information, and as such has no place here. It matters not at all whether each term is notable, verifiable or referenced. The list itself is indiscriminate. This is not a "list vs category" thing. I have the same argument against any similar category. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary. An interesting list, but unencyclopedic. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Dropping all the stuff with "Hungarian" in its name together in one list is a text book example of indiscriminate. Not useful either because we have search engines for that. - Mgm|(talk) 13:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki. I agree with Rhinoracer that this is neither encyclopedic nor useful as metadata. Powers T 14:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki. Almost all of these loosely related subjects should appear under the definition of the word "Hungarian". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no transwiki. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia's trashcan. If anyone needs a list of all Wikipedia articles containing the word "Hungarian", it's here. —Angr 15:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as appropriate to List of Hungary-related topics, not a category of list I like but one which seems to be accepted by consensus. A list of topics around the same subject may be acceptable but a list of terms which include the same word is - in my opinion - a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization, Wikipedia is not a directory. Guest9999 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging to List of Hungary-related topics seems reasonable. For those suggesting a transwiki to wiktionary -- does that project want these sort of lists? Unless such lists are appropriate on Wiktionary, I don't think suggesting to transwiki is helpful. older ≠ wiser 15:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as list with arbitrary criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory, and anyone wanting to search for a specific term in the title can do so. Stifle (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as list with coincidence of name; any items that are refered to by the one word "Hungarian" should be listed at Hungarian, a disambiguation page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. These terms should not be part of the Hungary disambiguation, as they do NOT disambiguate the term Hungarian as it would be used or wikilink'd on WP pages, so those links were excised from the disambig page for that reason. So the list has not been built specifically built for a purpose, more as people had been contributing them to the disambig page over time. Then rather than be trashed (and to lessen the chance of them being added again) they were place as a set index, from the disambig page. So to the page itself, I mind not either way whether it stays or goes, just not back on the disambig page. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.