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 keep. Brandon (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a trivial and 99% unsourced directory of shibboleths with little to no encyclopedic value. JBsupreme (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. We have the article shibboleth, which explains the concept and allows for a few notable examples. If, in the future, enough sourced examples are included, this article can be recreated as an extension of shibboleth. It is a concern that this article is not only unsourced, but is a bit of a magnet for original research. — Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but reference. I can see this list as having considerable use - to writers, for example (I have used the list for just such a purpose myself). It also handily links a large number of articles which individually refer to the shibboleths involved in their subjects (e.g., the various pronunciations of place names). Trimming out some items, especially those which cannot be referenced, would be worthwhile, however. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference. There's already a decent start on the referencing, and it's likely sources could e found for the others without too much trouble. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis is why WP gets a bad rap. this is barely sourced, and sounds so authoritative. an encyclopedia needs sources. i would support stripping every example without a source, and rebuild with strict guidelines. by the way, the list will be profoundly long if it nears completion. of course a list of shibboleths is encyclopedic, but right now this isnt. is there an editor or editors of this list that would accept removal of most of the examples?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response. The thought crossed my mind, but my problem is that this list is just too indiscriminate and trivial. Even with a source, why would we want to list every damn shibboleth under the sun? That just seems silly. If the consensus is to keep this though, then yes, of course, I would agree that the non-verified material must be stripped in accordance with WP:V policy. JBsupreme (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second response. Whoever said that the aim of all lists on Wikipedia was for them to be complete? There are many lists here where it is impossible for them to ever be complete - this is one of those articles. That's why we have templates like ((Dynamic list)). It's far more important to list the main items/examples on such lists, and if other examples can be found, referenced, annotated and added, all well and good. I doubt that anyone would expect this to ever approach completion, any more than, say, we could expect a complete List of Canadians or List of galaxies. As Mercurywoodrose says, a list of shibboleths would be encyclopedic if done properly. There's enough info here to build such an encyclopedic list - it needs fixing, not deleting. Put the unreferenced ones on the talkpage for now and let's start hunting for references for them. Grutness...wha? 07:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we strip it down to just what's referenced, it would be small enough to merge with shibboleth, wouldn't it? That might be what we should do and we would split it when the sourced examples get too unwieldy in that article. — Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we strip it down to just what's referenced but put the rest on the talk page, and then hunt for references for them, it would be too long for merging - and that is what would normally be done in such circumstances. I'd definitely be strongly against merging. Grutness...wha? 06:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a feeble drive-by nomination contrary to our deletion policy. The article has been neglected, having had an unreferenced tag for some time, even though it did actually have numerous references. I have added another reference and this was quite easy. The article is just imperfect like 99% of our articles and the remedy for this is editing work and talk page discussion, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. This is useful for college and high school students, as well as other users. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup/source. Notable topic, but needs references for any entry on the list. The unsourced entries should be moved to the talk page to be researched, and moved back when appropriately sourced. (Will change to Super Speedy Über Keep if a source can be found proving that the people of Delaware are completely ignorant in the way the pronounce Newark.) Jim MillerSee me | Touch me 20:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of notable examples, is perfectly fine for a Wikipedia list article. DreamFocus 02:15, 26 November 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.