Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of calculator words

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 I like it or it's fun isn't a valid vote reasoning. Jaranda wat's sup 00:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of calculator words

List of calculator words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is kind of fun but hardly encyclopedic. Wikidepia is not a collection of trivial information. Also, it is not for ideas made up in school. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 00:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - it isn't encyclopedic, is original research, and is a lot of things made up in school one day. Now, if only someone had made this page when I was in highschool... Koweja 01:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Uncyclopedic. —dima/s-ko/ 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5318008 Artw 01:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom - Its one big trivia list. Floria L 01:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kind of fun, I could see an almanac having a page like this. --Duke of Duchess Street 01:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason for keeping. MER-C 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I think that it's a trivia.", the rationale used by several editors here, isn't a reason for deletion, conversely. A proper rationale would address the purpose of the list, per Wikipedia:List guideline, the scope of the list, per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), and our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Uncle G 04:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the other hand, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) says that stand-alone lists should be made only for encyclopedic information, and an assertion of triviality is (essentially) an assertion that the information is nonencyclopedic. At least, that is how I interpreted it. --Sopoforic 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That would be a circular rationale: "It's unencyclopaedic because it's trivial. It's trivial because it's nonencyclopaedic." If one is asserting that something is unencyclopaedic, one should at least articulate what the relevant policy that one is thinking of is. Uncle G 05:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I meant that trivial things are unencyclopedic, and unencyclopedic things don't belong in wikipedia. It's trivial because it isn't important. In particular, I mean that this list isn't notable by itself. A condensed version in the main article for calculator spelling may be worthwhile, but there is already a link to a list of calculator words in the external links section. --Sopoforic 05:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm going to back up the keep here - see below. This is one of those things I think WP:IGNORE was intended for. --Dennisthe2 08:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please read Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 12#What is the purpose of an EL section in an encyclopedic article?. The main point of an entry in an article's "External links" section is to link to content that cannot or may not be included in the actual article. But you yourself have just stated that a list of calculator words can and may be included in an article. Since you yourself have just argued that a list of such words is acceptable content for an article, what is your basis for arguing that this article should be deleted? It cannot be that the list is non-notable. (If it were non-notable, why have so many separate people compiled and published such a list?) It cannot be that the list is unverifiable. (One can verify it against the several lists that have been linked to both in the article and in this discussion.) It cannot be that this is unacceptable content for an article. (You've just argued that a list of calculator words is acceptable.) So what is it? Uncle G 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I was the main organiser of the article, so consider the bias. However, also consider the article (before I messed with it) dates back more than 1.5 years, and before that, other articles on a similar topic had similar content. The result of my work is not original, but merely a consolidation of already present matter in a better location. Spamguy 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMerge into Calculator spelling and Delete. --Sopoforic 02:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of the list is clearly informational. The scope of the list is well-defined, and is not excessively broad, given that there is both a limited alphabet and a limited word length. All verifiability and original research concerns appear to be a matter of cleanup, not of deletion, given that the article is verifiable from many sources who have already done the research of determining what words can be made, such as this, this, and this. Our policies appear to be satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 04:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think it's 71830. TSO1D 05:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the article, that translates to "fool". Fortunately, we don't base our decisions upon what Wikipedia editors personally think to be foolish. That would result in the deletion of quite a lot of articles about various systems of belief, for starters. Please explain which of our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines you think that this article contravenes, and why. Uncle G 05:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't mean that the article was foolish, however that the entire idea of basing an article on such a topic was perhaps ill conceived. I understand that WP:ILIKEIT is not acceptable criteria, I believe that the article can be no more than trivia and thus should not be included. TSO1D 00:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Wikipedia:Department of Fun. It has a long tradition, and its not made up in school one day. Oddly enough it can be verified with a calculator. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richard Arthur Norton send to Wikipedia:Department of Fun. It isn't made up, unencyclopedic yes, but not made up, my dad taught me to do this when I was a kid.--Dakota 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but copy several well-known words to Calculator spelling first. MaxSem 07:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete- Hm. I remember being amused by this when I was younger. A condensed version in the Calculator spelling article, along with maybe an external link to a more extensive list, would suffice to explain the concept. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- it's purpose is to describe and explain a subject, and it should only continue to accumulate data on a subject as long as doing so still sheds light on what it's about. This article has well and truly passed that point. It ought to go, simply because it is just a mindless heaping of data. Oh, and most of these were just made up in school one day. Reyk YO! 07:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Rey. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 07:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible that this was, indeed, made up in school - but keep in mind how long pocket calculators have been around, and had to have been made up in school some...oh, forty years ago, maybe. Now, I can easily say delete on account of WP:LIST, and I can't vote keep just because I like it - but on account that this is something of a passed-on thing in schools and has a high hack value, and is not easily verifiable or notable by the normal channels, I'm going to pull the ignore all rules card. Strong Keep. --Dennisthe2 08:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is verifiable, note. Look at the sources that I linked to above. Uncle G 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am also going to pull the WP:IAR card. Ever heard of the Wikipedia: Department of Fun. Ever see what happens to this site on April Fools Day? This article can be verified with a common calculator. It is helpful, fun, somewhat useful, and actually knowledge. Yes, everyone who has ever passed through grade school in countries such as Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, and especially the United States knows of this. This page should be kept! S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. I always thought WP:IAR was a dangerous thing to have lying around. I strongly feel that it should not apply in determining wether material should be included in Wikipedia mainspace articles. In this area the rules are crucial- everyone is bound to want to save there favourite unencyclopedic articles on the bases of WP:IAR which just becomes WP:ILIKEIT on a policy footing. These words were dreamed up in school on many days. Sometimes such ideas can become widespread and popular amongst those of school age, but that does not make them worthy of an encyclopedia article where there content is unimportant and not notable (see Common room cricket for an example of a recent AfD of this sort). I think fun has its place in the Wikipedia community, but not in the article mainspace. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This whole list is available on websites linked to from the article Calculator spelling, and it should be noted that many of these words aren't words that anyone ever used before--they're just all possible words. There may be some value in this list, for some purpose, but for the purpose of the encyclopedia I think that we should just pick the most common calculator words to place in the main article on calculator spelling, and remove the list. --Sopoforic 13:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what source are you proposing to use for determining what are the "most common" words? Or are you proposing that editors perform original research? The sources that we have don't say which words are the common ones. Uncle G 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: I want to state clearly, since I'm not certain people recognize it, based on comments: there is already a page about the practice of spelling words on a calculator. The arguments that have been used about how everyone knows about spelling words on a calculator, etc are arguments in support of keeping the article Calculator spelling, but what we are concerned with here is the article List of calculator words. The practice of spelling words on the calculator is notable enough for an article, but the list of all words doesn't merit an article of its own. --Sopoforic 13:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Long, long ago, a list like this one was present on the page you cite. Note the list's arbitrary nature ('donkey' in German...a great intro to calculator spelling!), and also its absolute uselessness. Any longer and it becomes useful, but unwieldly; any shorter or at that length, and it is manageable but pointless. It absolutely requires a separate article.

        I would, however, lightly agree that attempting to list every word in every language is a futile task. When some non-arbitrary boundaries ('your favourite calculator word sucks' doesn't cut it) can be agreed upon by the community, I will gladly bring the list down to something sensible yet useful. I will always be strongly in favour this article's continuation, but I do understand criticism of its length. Spamguy 19:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 313730 (looks better on a calculator) -- Chris is me 15:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Factually correct, but Wikipedia is not a repository of trivial information.--Anthony.bradbury 16:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate a list as one could ever conceive. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is indiscriminate about it? The criterion for inclusion on the list seems to be very discriminate: The word must be one that can be produced via calculator spelling. Uncle G 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cool, but not for WP FirefoxMan 17:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks funny, but it is definitely not Wikipedia material. --Insineratehymn(talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep heh heh heh... Boobies. Just H
  • Delete for too arbitrary of a list.-- danntm T C 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day --Anthonycfc 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Calculator spelling. I don't see this surviving as an independant article, but the calculator spelling page could always use a few more examples. FWIW, the World Almanac for Kids has included similar lists in the past. Zagalejo 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 32008 + 5318008 = 55178!!! (cough) I mean, delete. We should take the same approach as used in Hexspeak and Leet. It's fine to include a bunch of common examples in the Calculator spelling article, but just like we're not the official dictionary of leet, we shouldn't become the official dictionary of calculator words. (Translation of my !vote is left as an exercise for the reader.) Quack 688 09:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At last an argument that appears to be appealing to policy! Just so that we are clear: Are you arguing that the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy applies? Uncle G 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that works for me. My main concern was with duplicating what's out there already. You've provided a few sources that list calculator words - there's no reason we can't list a fair bunch of examples in the calculator words article, then link to those outside pages as web resources which provide a full list of words. By doing that, Wikipedia readers will still have access to the full list - we just won't have to maintain it. Quack 688 01:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. It also fails WP:V. Davidpdx 10:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it does not. I linked to three sources that it can be verified against above. Please read the prior discussion. Uncle G 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I see nowhere in the article or the discussion that you have proved this is sourced properly. Looking at the article, there is one source (in Spanish). If you want to sit there and try to impune every single vote made against the article you wrote/contributed to then fine. I will not change my vote. Davidpdx 00:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Verifiability and OR aren't concerns - the sources listed here show that these words aren't the original thought of the editors of this list. Quack 688 01:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • AFD is not a vote. Pointing to sources counters claims of unverifiability. Your assertion that the article is not verifiable is simply disproven by the existence of sources, three of which are linked to in the prior discussion. Please read it again, more closely. Uncle G 03:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Trivial, but potentially interesting to someone. It's the list that goes with Calculator spelling. -- User:Docu
  • Merge to calculator spelling per Quack 688's arguments. Now can we get rid of ‎List of common misspellings in English? Dekimasu 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is indiscriminate information with no deeper value: we might just as well have a list of "numbers I can type into my calculator using just my thumb". WMMartin 18:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even though this article is kind of cool, I don't think it has a place on Wikipedia; what's listed in Calculator spelling should be sufficient. Babcockd 04:44, 4 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_calculator_words&oldid=1138005897"