Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of palindromes

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. Anyone wanting to merge can contact me on my talk page, but would want to overcome User:Animalparty's compelling point. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of palindromes

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

This list has the same problems as List of palindromic phrases in English, which was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of palindromic phrases in English). (And I could have sworn another version of this list was just deleted a month or two ago—can anyone help me find the AfD?) I think a decent list of palindromes could be created (particularly, one which restricts itself to notable palindromes with their own articles). However, this article isn't it. Psychonaut (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Palindrome#Famous English palindromes (the really well-known sentences are already in the article, as are some example words and some not so wonderful sentences: e.g. "Go hang a salami, I'm a lasagna hog"). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge There are plenty of sources out there listing famous palindromes such as Aha!. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing. Andrew D. (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some sources that discuss lists of palindromes, mostly in educational books. Whether this constitutes significant coverage is open to debate, but I wanted to note that the article as currently constituted lacks any sourcing whatsoever, and that each palindrome should be sourced for its significance - using the article as a dumping ground for any palindrome that comes to mind is not how Wikipedia works. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate and trivial content, extremely broad inclusion criteria, contrary to WP:SALAT: if solely being a self-evident palindrome is the criterion, that is clearly indiscriminate, and will possibly invite original creations. No need to merge to Palindrome, which is already clogged with trivial mentions of palindromes (see Palindrome#Names_and_titles and Palindrome#Television. "But they exist!" Ugh, who cares? --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if this article be deleted, I'll still have this article, but on Wikia. Planet Star 00:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting trivia, but not an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps a partial merge to palindrome#Famous English palindromes would be in order... Carrite (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge the most notable phrases. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2015 (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.