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. While consensus is not unanimous here, there is a substantial consensus that this topic is too broad to be a useful list. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of hobbies[edit]

List of hobbies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is unencyclopedic and incredibly ambiguous in its inclusion criteria. The fact that participatory democracy, giving advice, sociology, dairy farming, and anime (all unsourced) co-exist on a list with hundreds of entries should be evidence enough of this point. This page either needs wholesale deletion (as was done in 2009) or major restructuring with clearly-defined and verifiable criteria -- something that is probably impossible given the open-ended nature. It could possibly be reduced down to List of collection hobbies since most of the other entries will be covered by other lists, like List of sports.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's a list which is so subjective that it could include almost every human activity determined by an individual editor. We don't need this kind of indescriminate listicle. JMWt (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list like this just leads itself to any kind of interpretation, which is not a good thing. Plus, as always, Wikipedia is not a directory. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and require inline citations for every entry.
  1. This meets WP:NLIST readily as hobbies are very frequently discussed in-depth as a group in reliable sources. (eg. here are some books dedicated to the topic [1][2][3][4]...).
  2. It also fulfills WP:LISTPURP doubly.
     1. It's an informational list grouped by theme.
     2. It's also a navigational list as an index of hobbies on Wikipedia.
  3. Given that it is already split into sections, it comfortably meets WP:SALAT. This also means it could be easily split into a WP:List of lists including such lists as the nom's suggestion of List of collection hobbies.

The only problem highlighted this list is that there may be subjective opinion in it due to the lack of citations on some entries. We can readily resolve that by requiring inline citations for each entry. —siroχo 16:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, you are saying that the list is fine if we can find a single reference for each item in the list which describes how an someone treats each specific activity as a hobby? You realise that's probably absolutely everything and that it will result in a page with hundreds of references, right? JMWt (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, that's not what I'm saying, no. Requiring inline citations to reliable sources is a way to improve this list incrementally, right now. If the criteria is still too wide, we can require RS with SIGCOV of each entry as a hobby, multiple RS, etc. There's lots of approaches to improving this list, and I've suggested one that immediately addresses the core of the current issue raised. —siroχo 19:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that will definitely result in a page with hundreds of references. -- asilvering (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what's exactly the problem with hundreds of references...? The Blue Rider 23:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of the page? Who is going to a page to discover whether any particular activity is considered (by an en.wiki editor) to be a hobby? The page could contain almost unlimited entries long with an associated thousand references - for no real gain or value. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: a lot of people would, myself included; that's why I stumbled upon it. The article has +100k views just from the last 30 days, it's clearly an useful list. I suppose it's mainly used to look for new hobbies to pickup. The Blue Rider 12:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory; it doesn't matter if 100k+ people view it in the past month if the page itself isn't encyclopedic. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 13:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The views do matter to demonstrante utility of the page. None of WP:DIRECTORY's clauses fall into this; hobbies are an wildly discussed topic by many reliable sources. An article in a bad state doesn't merit a deletion (WP:DINC).The Blue Rider 14:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simple listin[g] without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. It's just a jumble of verbs and activities, most of which are unsourced. I would be fine with cutting off anything without a reliable source but even then, most sources as to what a "hobby" is are directories of hobbies. Utility isn't a goal of Wikipedia -- a hypothetical List of 20 best vegan spots in Portland, Oregon might get significant views, but it's not a page that fits with our encyclopedic goals. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 05:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a lot of sources might be mere lists, but something as big as hobbies is always going to have reliable sources. Google any hobby and add «hobby» in front of it and you're most surely going to find an article specifically talking about the benefits, why its a good hobby, etc. Take these as examples:^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} The Blue Rider 09:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are really reliable; they don't focus on the activities' status as a hobby. They just offhandedly call them hobbies. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how WP:CONTEXTMATTERS applies here, the hobby is being actively discussed in the article. Obviously you won't get a full-blown scholarly article/book about the activity status of each hobby, but you don't need to have the WP:BESTSOURCE either. Nevertheless, perhaps these would satisfy you better:^[7][8][9] The Blue Rider 19:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please for the love of God put those references in a container. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 03:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Siroxo. The Blue Rider 23:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep and require scrupulous citation, as above. I don't actually think this will require hundreds of references, as I do think it will be possible to find individual references covering dozens of items at a time. BD2412 T 00:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SALAT. While yes it does satisfy NLIST, it's just far too broad to be manageable. The majority(?) of human activities can be hobbies. Under educational hobbies, you could place every field of knowledge. All but the most specialized sports can be hobbies (I doubt there are any hobbyist cliff divers.), and so on and so on. Hobby categorizes them by general type, and that is all that is practical. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. As for the OP's suggestion of List of collection hobbies, we already have List of collectables, which covers the same area. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Clarityfiend: I don't see how the breadth is any greater than that of Lists of occupations. BD2412 T 03:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  List of occupations is a list of lists; and many of said lists have the same problems I identified with List of hobbies (also, see WP:WHATABOUT). MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 06:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the number of leisure activities is significantly greater than that of occupations. In fact, many occupations can be hobbies; examples from the list include tanning (leather), being a blacksmith, woodworking, mechanics (though I doubt the person who added that to the list meant the area of physics). Practically every human activity is pleasurable to someone. (I draw the line at Wikipedia editing, though; that's not a hobby, it's a disease or obsession.) All toys (Rubik's Cube), games (poker), fads (hula hooping), social activities (Model United Nations?), etc. qualify, based on how this list is set up. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @Asilvering: and @Liz: MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 06:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a perfectly good navigational list. Reading it gives an idea of the realms of human interest. And fourth nomination? Once something is kept two times then any further nomination is above and beyond reasoning, a "fire at the target until someone hits it" type of deletion attempt. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "fire at the target until someone hits it" type of deletion attempt. This is further reinforced by the nominator reopening the AfD and pinging two of their friends. The Blue Rider 10:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hopefully every Wikipedian is a friend of every other Wikipedian. They are a fairly rare breed, requiring care and feeding. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I pinged them (including one admin!) because they asked me to re-open the AfD according to policy (one cannot withdraw a deletion nomination if there are delete votes, a policy I was not aware of.) I am the one who closed the AfD in the first place, after all, and it's not like someone else closed it and I re-opened it because I wasn't satisfied. Assume good faith and refrain from making accusations against other editors.

  In any case, it has been deleted in the past and was re-made. The last nomination was over a decade ago. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory, and being a "perfectly good navigational list" isn't meaningful here. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Blue Rider If you need the context for the ping, it's here: [5]. -- asilvering (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The first nomination was a delete, and that was back in 2009 when people tended to be a lot more permissive of this stuff. The second nom was a fast withdrawal without much input. The third nom should have been closed as "no consensus" rather than a "keep". Just because garbage slips through the cracks doesn't mean you can't try to clean it up until it's finally gone. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No bias here I see. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Bias would imply that we have some other reason for thinking this page is irredeemable. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 16:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Come on - the last AfD was a decade ago. This is hardly fair to the nom and delete voters. -- asilvering (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuke it from orbit (it's the only way to be sure). I find the pleas of "valid navigational list" wholly inadequate. As has been pointed out, practically any activity a human being can perform can be on this list. Requiring a source that explicitly calls something a hobby isn't going to cut it here, as we're even into WP:SKYISBLUE territory. One hobby of mine is ROM hacking. I can't find any specific RS that call it a hobby, but it undoubtedly is one. A quick googlin' finds plenty of other people who say so too, even if we can't get a proper source for it. Exclusion of this would be inappropriate, yet it's just the tip of a giant iceberg, rendering this list so broad as to be useless, per WP:SALAT. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT (if my hobby isn't included then other shouldn't be). Will check out ROM hacking, have not heard of it, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk)

  A completely unhelpful mischaracterization of my argument...I could just as easily call yours a classic WP:ILIKEIT. Thank you, drive through. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, come on, this article is viewed by an average of 3,300 people a day, sometimes many more. WP:COMMONSENSE should apply to such a number, especially if the page serves such a wide navigational purpose (the purpose of most lists). It does need some alphabetical fixes, but aside from that nothing is broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My common sense tells me that this list is complete garbo, and has no hope of ever rising beyond complete garbo. The view count is probably due to people simply googling for "hobbies" and Wikipedia's article being the third (for me at least...it will probably be generally similar for others) result, and not people using it for a "navigational purpose". Other sites can perfectly well discuss suggestions for hobbies to try out, and such like. Wikipedia cannot. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  View counts a good page does not make. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 16:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: LISTCRUFT. Agree with nom, and statement above "a list so completely subjective that it could include almost every human activity determined by an individual editor."  // Timothy :: talk  14:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Compromise". Let's rename it List of human activities! Come one, come all: no activity too small or obscure! Clarityfiend (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LC items 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't like list articles and actively loathe infinite lists, but this meets all policy-based criteria for inclusion. It has a valid WP:SELCRIT, and 'too big' and 'unmanageable' and 'silly' and even 'useless' fall 100% under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would love to make this a delete !vote, but there simply is zero policy reasons to support such a decision. Until policy changes, Siroxo is absolutely correct that the proper result is to go full-draconian on required sourcing and leave it alone. Sorry & Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there's anything to say that hasn't already been said, but this list is so broad as to be unencyclopedic. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In particular, the following line from WP:SELCRIT is telling:

List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper.

BrigadierG (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, on the basis of it being more or less indiscriminate - a list of activities done for enjoyment will be too long to have any use or meaning. It already attempts to list all sports. Potentially any activity could be done for enjoyment. Sionk (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NLIST but we should remove every hobby that does not have a citation in the list or add more citations if needed Isla 17:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Siroxo's sound analysis of this list and our policies plus Randy Kryn's common sense observation that readers flock to this list. Yes, it needs citations for entries but deletion ≠ cleanup. Eventually, it should become a list of lists with individual entries, but that's not the task at immediate hand. It meets our policies and guidelines.

I've been told I need a new hobby so this list will be helpful to me.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo, and the general premise that while it's a broad and somewhat loosely defined category there definitely is a core concept here, and ways to use citations to come to a general consensus of which things qualify as hobbies. Looking over a few other similarly broad concepts like occupations, frauds, cuisines and so on. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops I butchered my links, which were: List of cuisines of the Americas, List of types of fraud, and Lists of occupations. WilsonP NYC (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Came here expecting to keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP, but the more I think about it, the more it seems like creating working inclusion criteria is impossible. Yes, you can find sources that say "X is a hobby" or "X is some person's hobby" just like you can find sources saying something is a "thing" or an "activity", but that's not sufficient. It's not just that it's subjective (we have lots of lists based on subjective terms -- genres, for example), but that it is only meaningful in its opposition to "professional" in the way it modifies "activity". It's even broader than a "list of jobs" because nearly any job can be someone else's hobby. It's just untenable. Thus delete per WP:SALAT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rhododendrites and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Followup comment. First, Rhododentrites really hit the nail on the head with the observation that what makes this one such an odd duck is that "hobby" is just in opposition to "professional". But I also want to again note that for the people clamoring that we just need to include citations...no we don't, per WP:SKYISBLUE. Requiring that you can find some random RS that just happened to mention that so-and-so enjoyed X as a hobby is just going to eliminate things that should clearly be on the list, that no reasonable person is going to object to...and it will also bloat the list with completely pointless sources for things that do have them. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, take a look at User:The Blue Rider's proposed references and they're almost entirely off-handed mentions about something being someone's hobby. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 03:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's far from the truth, but if you want to strawman my sources do it as you will. The Blue Rider 09:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a classic case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Any number of activities can be considered a hobby. User:Let'srun 12:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I see a lot of folks tagging WP:INDISCRIMINATE in this discussion. To butcher Inigo Montoya's famed quote, "I don't think that policy means what you think it means." INDISCRIMINATE is about providing appropriate context, and it explains four specific reasons that an article should not be created. None of them has any relevance here. You might mean WP:SELCRIT, but (again) nothing in SELCRIT precludes this article. Hobbies are discussed as a group in RSs, and everything listed (according to what I see) is notable enough for a stand-alone article and sourced as a hobby. As I said, I loathe these endless lists, but this one is 100% within policy. When objecting to huge, unwieldy lists, editors have proven that there are specific policies for managing such lists and none for deleting them. "Too big to be managed/reasonable/useful" is another way to say WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and for the record, I don't like it). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion - Might converting this into a list of lists be a good compromise? Including things like List of games, List of sports, List of collectables, etc. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 06:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do think that's a generally good direction for this list to take even with a keep outcome. We'll have to take some care, as List of games may constitute individual hobbies, but we also might want to link to something like Outline of games § Types of games, as some people consider a type of game their hobby. It may suit us to provide a sentence or so of context from RS in some cases.

  There are also some useful categories that could be crosslinked in lieu of a list, eg. Category:Observation hobbies —siroχo 06:51, 13 September 2023 (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.