Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations (2nd 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The result was   WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unencyclopedic WP:DICTIONARY list that has already been transfered to wiktionary. The fact that it seems to be transcluded in List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names does not strike me as a good reason for keeping this in mainspace. If possible the article could be transferred to project space at WP:ETHNIC, or it could be renamed to List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Article has been renamed to something more adequate to its contents, which takes care of part of the problem - the part it doesn't solve is that we still have content in article space that is copied in wiktionary and which is transcluded in another article - i.e. it is repeated three times. Nonetheless: I withdraw the nomination for deletion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I oppose the deletion of the article, but I support the renaming of it to "List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations", with the phrase "for countries and nations".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a rationale for why you don't think this particular list of words is not an example of WP:NOTDICTIONARY?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The introduction provides non-definitional information, and even more can be provided.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Listify. Rename article as List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names. I don 't object to deleting the article entirely, but suspect that consensus will clamor for keeping it - so let's make it into a list. Majoreditor (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a list already, although it is in the form of a sortable wikitable. Renaming it with the name of an article that transcludes it is somewhat circular, and it is not helpful.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Lists being with "list" and why is the article transcluded in the list anyway? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply have the list with no transclusion?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Majoreditor (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know when we have ever kept things in article space just because it is transcluded in other articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the list article nominated for deletion needs to have a title that begins with "List of", that is a separate issue. This list article (and several other list articles) are now transcluded in the more comprehensive list article, List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names.  In the beginning, there was only one list article, but transclusion was performed in stages in May and June 2006.  As a result, with several shorter list articles transcluded in the more comprehensive list article, there is flexibility, in that a reader can view a smaller list article separately, or view the entire combination together in one comprehensive list article.  This list article is an important part of the comprehensive list article.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many wikicode errors in the list article at wikt:Transwiki:Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations (version of 23:20, 11 September 2010).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC) and 20:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These 15 list articles are transcluded in the comprehensive list article, List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names (version of 19:57, 23 October 2012). Eight of them are templates.
 * Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for continents
 * Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations
 * Adjectivals and demonyms for cities
 * Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for Australian states
 * Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for Canadian provinces and territories
 * Adjectivals and demonyms for states and territories of India
 * Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for Mexican states
 * Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for New Zealand regions
 * Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for Philippine provinces
 * Adjectivals and demonyms for U.S. states (redirected to List of demonyms for U.S. states)
 * List of demonyms for U.S. states
 * Adjectivals and demonyms for subcontinental regions
 * Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for regions in Greco-Roman antiquity
 * Adjectivals and demonyms for former regions
 * Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for fictional regions
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations, per Wavelength. This list is a navigational aid within Wikipedia, and consensus at least usually favours keeping useful lists like this one in mainspace, provided they are clearly labelled as lists. Deleting the content will simply impede navigation, renaming this to the title of an already existing more general article where it is already transcluded, along with several other related but different lists, is not practicable (what happens to the current article at that name?) and, while the content could be moved into the more general article, a list of "forms of place names" is not the first place I would think of looking for such information on countries (though it might be the fifth or sixth). PWilkinson (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (version of 12:01, 27 December 2012) says: "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions". Wikipedia has many glossaries in Category:Glossaries.  A list-of-articles without definitions is still useful as an aid to navigation, but definitions increase its usefulness.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay Jay What did I do? 23:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)




 * Comment I ment to Relist this today so that is why the date is wrong  Jay Jay What did I do? 01:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"'Unencyclopedic' is an empty argument. It means 'not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia', which is synonymous with 'should not be included' or 'I want it deleted'. So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: 'Delete, because it should be deleted'.  This is just repeating yourself.  What we want to know are your reasons why the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.  Simply answer the question, What guidelines does it violate, and how?"
 * Strong delete. Without stating the obvious it is, well, stating the obvious. And it is over at Wiktionary. WP is 'not all things to all men"...-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, per Wavelength's comments, but would support a change of name per either of the suggestions above. Just because something is a list does not automatically make it unencyclopedic. This particular list is of a form well covered by Manual of Style/Glossaries and Stand-alone_lists, and as such should not be considered simply "a dictionary definition". The information in the lede alone already takes it beyond disctionary status alone, and the article could be further expanded by explaining the reason for some of the less intuitive demonymic forms (e.g., the reason the Dutch are Dutch, the usage issues with the term Kosovar, the origin of the term Bajan). Some of these (e.g., Scotch/Scots/Scottish) are already covered as notes under the list, but expanding these to an entire section might convince some people who currently think that this list cannot be encyclopedic. Grutness...wha?  06:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename per Wavelength and PWilkinson. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep (rename to list OK) – it's a list article, that meets WP:LIST and WP:STAND inclusion criteria for the article namespace. This list doesn't qualify for deletion by established criteria, WP:NOTDIC not withstanding.  Please note that "unencyclopedic" is just another way of saying "delete it".  Quoting Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions:


 * I can't think of any good reasons to delete the article. But here are some more reasons it should be kept:
 * Its links are in Wikipedia context. That is, its entries link to Wikipedia articles, not Wiktionary pages.
 * It's an excellent navigation tool, like a table of contents, of articles on the countries and corresponding peoples of the world.
 * Countries are a major type of place, and so this is an integrated component of the more inclusive List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names. If it was removed, this would create a gaping hole in that list.
 * It gets accessed directly over a 1,000 times a month.
 * It gets accessed indirectly through List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names over 4,000 times a month.


 * That's over 60,000 hits per year. If we are going to deny these readers a Wikipedia-integrated list, we should have good reasons to do so, based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines.  The Transhumanist 06:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S.: rename completed. The Transhumanist 07:28, 6 January 2013 (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.