The result was Transwiki. MBisanz talk 02:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
A substantial list, possibly even a useful list, but neither the substantial nature nor the useful nature are reasons to keep it despite the evident hard work put in by the originator. But it is, to me an indiscriminate collection of information, and as such has no place here. It matters not at all whether each term is notable, verifiable or referenced. The list itself is indiscriminate. This is not a "list vs category" thing. I have the same argument against any similar category. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 12:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Transwiki. MBisanz talk 02:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
A substantial list, possibly even a useful list, but neither the substantial nature nor the useful nature are reasons to keep it despite the evident hard work put in by the originator. But it is, to me an indiscriminate collection of information, and as such has no place here. It matters not at all whether each term is notable, verifiable or referenced. The list itself is indiscriminate. This is not a "list vs category" thing. I have the same argument against any similar category. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 12:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply