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. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of hobbies[edit]

This article is hardly encyclopaedic. It is a list of things that people do, and there are debates about whether to include things like Elephant training, various types of cooking, and the like. Martin451 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that you can say whether an activity is a hobby or not. e.g. nudism may be considered a hobby by some, or a way of life by others, and its legality depends upon where you live. Steam cooking might regarded as a hobby by some, or just a method of healthy cooking by others. Martin451 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, that is some list. Infinitely expandable, and eminently not so very useful. And why only falconry? why not hawking? etc. And the opportunites for vandalism and (added) silliness are just too plentiful. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's some good faith here but the list couldn't possibly have some reasonable criteria for inclusion. LH (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:IINFO. The list is way too broad to exclude anything. Murdering people was a hobby to Jack the Ripper and building bombs was a hobby to Ted Kaczynski. Practically anything can go in this list! The subject of hobbies is too broad for a list, and I would argue also the same against categorization. Themfromspace (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly unmanageable and not obviously something that ought to be in an encyclopedia even if it were manageable. Off-topic: The list is amusing to skim -- but my amusement is dwarfed by the anguish that must be involved in trying to maintain it. I'm particularly amused to see that the list links to many articles that aren't even about the alleged hobby, but about a topic related to the hobby: for example, Conifer cone and Manga are linked under "Collecting", and the "Geyser gazing" link under "Observation" actually points to Geyser. --Orlady (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's NOT even a "List of Wikipedia articles about hobbies". The "collecting" section looks like a collection of random thoughts about things that people might collect. You can collect yardsticks, and you can collect bottle caps, and you can collect thimbles and you can collect shopping lists (?) and you can collect ______. Mandsford (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--I do, in fact, collect shopping lists! Other people's shopping lists! Drmies (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to collect underscores, but found they weren't particularly useful. These days I collect parantheses. JulesH (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew a surgeon who collected colons and semi-colons. Gross! Mandsford (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because some people have the strangest hobbies, and no list of hobbies could ever hope to be anything like complete. JulesH (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly unmaintainable and expandable without any sort of boundary. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete and close the VfD - snowball. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you just say "If it's in the category, it can go in the list?" Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't put in everything from the category. The category crowd is, generally, no more intelligent than the listmaking crowd, as Category:Hobbies demonstrates. The category suffers from the same problems as the list, since anyone can tag any article to throw it in the hobby category. For instance, I don't know anyone with the spare time to take up Herbert R. Axelrod as a hobby, although I'm sure he was fun at parties. Mandsford (talk) 18:43, 10 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.