Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words in English with many vowels

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of words in English with many vowels[edit]

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

This article was split from English words with uncommon properties, which was deleted in November 2011 and userfied (see User:Squidonius/English words with uncommon properties). Personally, I think that article had some encyclopedic value and shouldn't have been deleted. However, this list of 1,000 words with many vowels serves no real purpose, and is unlikely to be of interest to anyone but Scrabble fanatics. I can't find any similar lists in anything that would count as a reliable source, so the concept itself isn't notable. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire concept of this seems laughable; maybe it would have a place on somewhere like Wiktionary, but not on Wikipedia! A big, bloated list lacking in purpose.Lukeno94 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary would probably exclude this kind of list of words.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleeeeete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information.--xanchester (t) 11:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This title raised a chuckle. I assume deletion because "many vowels" is entirely subjective and this is basically an indiscriminate and unencyclopedic topic on that basis. When I was studying Russian a prof had a funny example of a Czech sentence that had no vowels whatsoever, which is sort of the opposite deal... Carrite (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:LISTPURP, WP:LISTN, and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Trivial with no indication that this is a notable concept, nor are any English words apparently notable because of this characteristic, so this does not serve to provide more valuable information for any encyclopedia topic nor as a navigational index. postdlf (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Seems more suited for wiktionary. J36miles (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recommended above, WP is not a dictionary. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:38, 2 November 2012 (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.