Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hobbies (3rd nomination)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of hobbies

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

Fails WP:IINFO. The list is non-encyclopedic. It contains almost infinite number of activities. If not infinite, thousands of verbs may pass criteria of hobby. Every sport or collectible may be a hobby. Criteria of inclusion are simply subjective. dariusz woźniak (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A threshold for inclusion is already present:"This list includes only recognized hobbies that have been the subject of published discussions or which have organized membership associations." (That requirement could always be fine-tuned.) Certainly the number of hobbies which meet it is not "almost infinite." "Hobbies" is a notable topic, and of course should have its own article, but since there are so many popular and notable hobbies, many with their own Wiki articles, this list is an encyclopedic addition to the hobby article. This list is an appropriate navigational aid. I agree with the nominator in that It will not always be an easy job keeping in notable hobbies and keeping out all other idiosynchratic activities or sports made uo in school yesterday, or things people collect that no one else is known to collect. Many articles similarly require the occasional attention of editors.Something lacking coverage in reliable sources as a hobby can be removed. Truly popular and notable hobbies are covered in countless books such as [1]. An entry which cannot be thus referenced should be removed.Edison (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:LISTPURP as a useful navigation aid to browse articles about hobbies. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even with Edison's threshold, it's still not a finite list p b p 00:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only a finite number of activities will have wikipedia articles and be attested to as hobbies in reliable sources. Being open ended isn't reason for deletion. I don't see a fully-stated policy-based reason for deletion: the proposer links to WP:IINFO which prohibits "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", and "Excessive listings of statistics". None of these are anywhere near what this article is. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. AutomaticStrikeout 02:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula -- being open ended is not a reason to delete. Tris2000 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another one of those nasty lists that are impossible to write accurately since almost any activity has been documented as a hobby. Any list under this name would be disingenuous and could lead readers to think that what is on it is somehow different or more special than what is missing. Since this list is so arbitrary, its usefulness as a navigational aid suffers due to its standards of inclusion (as well as Edison's proposed criteria above). Them From Space 21:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that my opinion hasn't changed since the AfD in 2009 [2]. Them From Space 21:55, 1 October 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.