Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of palindromic phrases in English

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. Observing Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion's "Conveying meaning" will show that this is probably not suitable for there, either. - brenneman 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of palindromic phrases in English

This article is nothing more than listcruft. It does nothing for the understanding of the subject that the article Palindrome does not already adequately do. As discussed on the article talk page, this list is becoming unwieldly. This does not belong in wikipedia, per WP:NOT, as it is an indiscriminate list with no encyclopedic value to the reader. The page caters only to those who already know well what palindromes are, and who want to make a game out of listing them. It needs to be deleted and salted. No need to merge content, as the concept is well covered elsewhere. Jerry lavoie 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Top Spot]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same arguments and observations apply.

Palindromic words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Palindromic phrases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

note the first 5 responses to this AfD were prior to my adding these 2 other articles. Jerry lavoie 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Rise to vote, sir.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[tut-tut] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable and indiscriminate list. Trebor 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC) (in response to additional noms) Delete all for same reasons. Trebor 02:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[사전 사! 영한사전 사! 영영사전 사! 한영사전 사!] Noroton 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. We've got too many lists already. What is possibly encyclopedic about "Flee to me, remote elf"? The lists are impressive and extensive, but Wikipedia is not the repository of all human knowledge. This isn't the appropriate place for them. eaolson 01:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[So many dynamos!]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Sides reversed is]Noroton 12:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a great list. Can it be saved somewhere on some related Wiki site? If this isn't somewhere else on the Web, it would be a sad waste to lose it. Noroton 01:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Addition: My comments also apply to the two other oceans of palindromes the nominator has lined up at the guillotine (how's that for mixed metaphors). [kook] Noroton 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - perhaps it could be transwikied as an appendix to Wiktionary ...? -- Black Falcon 02:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Spit on no tips.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge Combine the three listed into one, with much cut out, Especially the "Palindromic sentences that are arguably cheating" crap. Reywas92Talk 02:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Oo! Doodoo!]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with this is it will always grow to its current state or worse if it stays. Would you !vote in favor of keep and full-protect? I doubt it. Let's make it go away, according to our already well-established policy.Jerry lavoie 02:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Oozy rat in a sanitary zoo.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion until transwikied, and if it can't be transwikied, I'd want to keep it. This puppy's too cute to be put to sleep in the pound. Looking over this vast sea of human ingenuity and not liking it is like stepping to the edge of Grand Canyon and saying, "Eh." C'mon guys, have a heart! Noroton 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Flee to me, remote elf.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Mirth, sir, a gay asset? No, don’t essay a garish trim.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Yeah, guilty as charged and shameless about it. Maybe I should start WP:WHERESYOURSOULPEOPLE?. I'm trying to find out how Wiktionary appendixes would work and if this list would be OK over there. Noroton 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [Ode protocol: loco torpedo.][reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary - In its current form, the article is an indiscriminate list of information. Given the scope of Wiktionary, it would seem to be a suitable candidate for transwikification to there as an appendix. Kyra~(talk) 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close and list seperatly. I do not think that these are similar enough to list together and some votes were when there was only on article in the AFD. meshach 03:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[redivider]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
at this point only one of the comments left before the other articles were added has not been recommented by the user. I have asked this user to come back and state whether their opinion counts for all or not. If they do not come back, we can just discount their !vote for the other two articles, no need to start over.... it would be a pointless waste of time. And not similar enough???? they are identical articles except one has single-word palindromes, and one includes other languages. The exact same arguments apply to all of them. If you disagree, you can !vote on each one separately.... there is no policy for an all-or-nothing close by the closing admin, they often disposition articles differently per the concensus reached... why waste our time? Jerry lavoie 03:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Are we not drawn onward, we few, drawn onward to new era?]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete. Indiscriminate list of information. And "A homo sapien, a scheme, a waterway: Yawretawaemehcsaneipasomoha" is the worst palindrome I've ever seen. bibliomaniac15 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a joke, in reference to all those variations that begin "A man, a plan ..." I thought it was quite good. Matt 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
[Σοφός – wise man]Noroton 06:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palindromatic comments: O, stone, be not so. I say to you deleters. And Bibliomaniac, there are some real good ones here: No, son, onanism's a gross orgasm sin: a no-no, son. Oh, no! Don Ho! Campus motto: Bottoms up, Mac! Lived as a devil. Naomi, sex at noon taxes, I moan. Tulsa night life: filth, gin, a slut. Evil; all its sin is still alive. E-file: no evil to laff a lot, live one life.
I hope nobody minds, but I found palindromic comments that seemed to fit almost all of the comments here. I don't think they should get in anyone's way. After all: ''No evil to laff a lot, live on! Noroton 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion? Noi tele da! .............. can't blame me for trying! ;) --Candy-Panda 06:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[retrosorter] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Interesting. The pages are a start. Definitions could be added and the list of examples kept. I think that all the pages are good actually, but I think that he foreign language examples should go on the appropriate language wikis, with links on each page to the other language pages. Snowman 11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[ailihphilia] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind that WP:INTERESTING isn't a reason to keep something. The definitions and full expansions are already in the main article palindrome. --Wafulz 13:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that examples of palindromes are needed for illustration, in a similar way that an article has a photo (which is likely to take up a lot space on the wiki servers than a list). I know that "interesting" is not a reason for inclusion in the wiki; howerver, none of the wiki rules are concrete. Snowman 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Especially the English single-word palindrome examples. Matt 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
    • Additional comment: I see that the single-word page (Palindromic_words) has been "has been transwikied to Wiktionary". The talk page provides a link to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words where the material has been copied. Obviously we don't want the list maintained separately in two places, but I have two questions. First, why would anyone think to look for a list of palindromes (or anthing else for that matter) in a dictionary? Second, even if they did, how would they find the page at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words? Typing "palindrome" or even "palindromic words" in the Wiktionary search box does not lead you to that page in any obvious way that I can see. Matt 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
[reviver] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So these are reasons for them to be listed in the wiki, searchable with "palindrome". Snowman 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why user:Matt (who started this paragraph) has not used a signature that is in a standard linked format. Snowman 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked the help desk at Wictionary whether these lists could go there, and I was told they could. I see no problem in what is essentially an unencyclopedic list moving over to Wictionary if it's OK over there. (I suppose nothing is a sure bet and it might be up for deletion for whatever rules they have, but the administrator over there thinks they'd fit in.) As Wictionary articles, they could easily be linked with the Palindrome article here, just about as easily as a Wikipedia article could be. I think this is the best solution. I'm a bit skeptical about foreign-language palindromes in the English Wictionary, but they could be farmed out with links to other-language Wictionaries, it seems to me. As to whether people would find the list: I think most people who fall upon those lists of palindromes now go there from the Palindrome article, and that won't change. If they find it through a search engine, that won't change either. Here's my discussion at the Wiktionary help desk:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Information_desk
Noroton 18:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just slapped the Wictionary-suggestion notice on the two articles that hadn't been moved there. As for the one that's been copied already, it looks like one article is available in the first link but not the second, more direct link to Wictionary. Maybe it's a matter of time or of decisionmaking over in Wictionary. [tattarrattat] Noroton 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe that's it. Maybe the intention was to put the content at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Palindromic_words, but for some reason it never happened and it got put at the apparently unfindable http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words instead. If the links from the Wikipedia palindrome article can be made to point to the lists at Wiktionary then that's better than losing the content altogether I suppose, But I still maintain that a dictionary is not the place for this sort of content. It makes no sense to me... Wikipedia is where it should be. Matt 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep as encyclopedic list, and not indiscriminate. Drat Saddam! Mad dastard! Otherwise I take noside. Edison 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide a rationale as to why this is encyclopedic. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles that discuss words on the basis of the word meanings themselves, and not the concepts they represent fail Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (Wiktionary is for the sign; Wikipedia is for the referent.) These lists of words are not encyclopedic, and, as lists of words go, rather abitrary. Dmcdevit·t 18:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Anna, Enok, sytytyskone, anna! "Give me the detonator, Enok, will you!"] Noroton 05:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Arbitrary" well, I dunno. They're all palindromes, after all.Noroton 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would hesitate to call "Butt raft fart tub" even a phrase. There's no meaning whatsoever attached to that string of words. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, but I don't think it's typical. Noroton 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are certainly more suitable for the wiktionary than for here, much like the lists of idioms that were recently transwikied. I don't think this is meant to be the place for a depository of any given type of interesting word usements. Agent 86 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Ora trovo: vortaro!: "Golden find: dictionary!"] Noroton 05:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, then delete. It's a neat list and it would be a pity to have it disappear. Let it find a home on wiktionary at least. --Zelse81 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete interesting, but it's cruft. /Blaxthos 02:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[가련하시다 사장집 아들 딸들아 집장사 다시 하련가] Noroton 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being interestin is not the same as being encyclopedic. Fail WP:NOT miserably. Nuttah68 11:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[표 세 명값 자책한 과부가 부과한 책자값 명세표] (I don't know what it means either, but if we delete it without it being transwikied, you will never, ever know, Nuttah68, and who will be miserable then ...?) Noroton 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having a wiki list of palindromes is useful for reference. It might not belong in an encyclopedia (especially some silly entries), but it should be in a wiki somewhere. So please don't delete this page until a suitable replacement wiki is found. Powerslide 03:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[ سر فلا كبا بك الفرس :: May your horse not stumble whilst you ride it.] Noroton 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This rationale is unreasonable. Whether it is encyclopedic or not is the only question at stake here, not whether it exists somewhere else. However, it has been copied to Wiktionary already. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As with other Brahmi-originated scripts, palindromes are rare in Telugu. However, one prominent example stands out for our discussion:-
  • వికట కవి (vi-ka-Ta-ka-vi/ 'A cunning poet')
"Popular folklore has it that the above term was reputedly coined by the Hindu Goddess of Wisdom, Saraswati to describe the 15th century Telugu poet, Tenali Ramakrishna, after he had tricked her into bestowing him both wealth and wisdom, when she specifically asked him to choose either of the two and not, as it were, both."[Comment by way of example to make the point that there is at least some encyclopedic content here, rather than palindrome meant to describe the argument or compliment the editor, as with the others] Noroton 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's not get too solemn about WP.DGG 04:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Al kasada sakla. Take this and put it in the safe.] Noroton 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide a rationale as to why this is encyclopedic. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[مودته تدوم لكل هول و هل كل مودته تدوم :: His style lasts through all horrors, and does every style last?]Noroton 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 24.185.34.152 06:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to wiktionary and delete. Word games belong in wikt. >Radiant< 14:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. What good is a entry on palindromes if there are no examples. Anyone who isn't intrestedi n the examples doesn't ave to click on them. What's downside? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.40.183.13 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Examples are ususally given as a means of better understanding a concept. There are already many examples in the main Palindrome article. eaolson 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list is consistent and discriminate ("not indiscriminate") within the definition of its scope. -- User:Docu
  • Delete all so broad as to be indiscriminant and unencyclopedic in scope. As Radiant! (and others have pointed out) this would be better at Wiktionary. Eluchil404 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki. I can't possibly see how this is encyclopaedic, or maintainable, despite the comments to the contrary. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 11:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Transwiki then delete. --Parker007 15:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and Delete xCentaur | ☎ 20:40, 22 February 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_palindromic_phrases_in_English&oldid=1146370527"