Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pangrams

: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. w/o prejudice to the judicious inclusion of material from this article at Pangram. Ping me if you need a copy. j⚛e deckertalk 19:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

=[[List of pangrams]]=

:{{la|List of pangrams}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pangrams Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|List of pangrams}})

I really don't think we need this list. It is mostly comprised of nonsense phrases thought up by people who apparently find this sort of thing terribly clever. I suspect removing this will be an uphill battle, but I would point out the following:

  • Most of the items on the list do not have references attached. This implies that their inclusion is based on original research.
  • Many of the entries are nonsense phrases. While they may in fact use every letter of the alphabet they are not actually coherent sentences in the form of English that real people actually use. I therefore would assert that having a long list of them does not help the reader to understand the concept of a pangram.
  • We have an article on pangrams. Listing a few coherent examples there should be sufficient.
  • And that leads us to the very long list of pangrams that aren't even in English. What service does it provide our readers to show them a pangram in Cherokee, or Malay, or for the love of God, Klingon or in country codes?
  • In short, while the may be an appropriate place for such a list on some Wikimedia project, I do not believe this is something that should be on the English Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

please note that if this is deleted there is also the subpage Talk:List of pangrams/More pangrams which contains another 84 examples. I tried to bundle it with this nom but a notice sprang up saying that would have to be done at MFD. I don't think that's right as if the main article is deleted it would be a page dependent on a deleted page and subject to speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is a text-book example of an indiscriminate list. New pangrams can be created on the nonce, and existing (unintended) ones can be [https://www.farside.org.uk/201410/pangrams_on_the_web found] in books and on the web. It is therefore impossible (not to mention undesirable) to create a list of every pangram, and there is no other inclusion criteria suggested or easily brought to mind. Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Cnilep. (If the article gets deleted, the talk subpage Talk:List of pangrams/More pangrams will be eligible for speedy deletion.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge Redirect Topic is covered adequately by Pangram, a few notable examples could be included in a table, or the entry could just be Deleted --Lfrankblam 17:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Although this article probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's rules, I found the article to be very useful. Maybe there could be some way of better organizing this (or trimming it down) so that it would meet the standards while retaining at least some of the information. CarnivorousBunnytalk • contribs 00:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

::"I find it useful" is generally not considered a valid argument against deletion unless you can explain why it is useful, not just for you but to the general public, our readers. If you could explain why having a long list (that is mostly gibberish to the average English speaker) serves our readers better than just having a few examples (that are not gibberish) in the main article on pangrams that would be a more compelling line of argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • To add my 2 cents, I arrived on this page as I was looking for a list of russian pangrams as exercises in reading and writing the cyrillic alphabet. Whether it is in keeping with Wikipedia's purpose I don't know, but I certainly found it useful.86.22.92.177 (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

: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.