Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish numerals


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Finnish numerals

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a list of foreign language (Finnish) numbers. I believe WP:NUMBER applies, although perhaps it is less about the actual numbers than a language-based article. In any case the article does not in any way meet the notability for lists of numbers under WP:NUMBER, which restricts notability to just two lists. If this is simply a language article, it is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and not an online language course Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTHOWTO. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  02:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is not an article about number per se so WP:NUMBER is not really relevent. It is an article related to the Finnish language and is included here because it is a part of Finnish Grammar. All Finnish grammar books have a section on the treatment of numerals and Finnish numerals can be quite challenging becuase of the multiplicity of case forms, the difference between the words as they are uttered when read and when spoken in normal speech. Also the fact that Finnish numerals have a "name" that is not the same as the number itself. The article should be linked primarily to the Finnish Grammar article as it really is a stub from there. If we are allowed a Finnish grammar article then we should have a Finnish numerals article as it is highly related. I will put cross references to the articles and seek comments about this Afd there. Please do not delete the article until there has been time for people there to see the article and comment on this Afd suggestion.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Response. Thanks.  It will be interesting to see what you do with the article!  Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To: Wikipeterproject. If you object so strongly to the Finnish numerals article, can I ask why you have not also raised the same issue at English numerals?--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. We have separate articles about the number words in many different languages, as it's an important part of vocabulary and grammar in any language. The articles aren't there for every language, but the ones that exist not only include major world languages (English, Chinese) and languages of scholarly interest (Proto-Indo-European, Etruscan), but even a few living languages with no more significance than Finnish (Armenian, Welsh, Chuvash). The article's tone is too much like a how-to guide, but that's easily fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wiktionary has several appendices on numeral systems in various languages, that are much like this article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Agree that this is not a WP:NUMBER issue.  But to keep, the notability of the topic must be determined.  That other, similar articles exist is not relevant in itself (see WP:OTHERSTUFF).  Neither are arguments that it's useful information.  Notability is determined by "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."  This article has no references at all.  If the article doesn't get some references (and perhaps trimmed back to just reflect those references) WP:NOTGUIDE definately applies.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's silly to apply WP:NUMBER to this.  This is not an article about a number.  It's an article about one aspect of the Finnish language. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Response. Agreed.  See above, I conceded that point, but what about WP:NOTGUIDE? My point with nominating this for deletion was a question of notability.  i still don't think the article meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia.  none of the keep arguments here really address that. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems similar to the view that the ONLY reason to learn a foreign language is to use it as a means of communicating. If that were true, then maybe "NOTAGUIDE" would apply.  But suppose one wished to understand one particular aspect of the way in which the Finno-Ugric languages evolved.  Maybe things like that are closer to the reason why people reader articles on particular languages. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's a good point.  If one were looking for that sort of information, one would not find it in this article.  The article is essentially a user guide and doesn't provide the information you refer to.  I would expect that information to be included in an article about the Finnish language or Finnish grammar or even in a stand-alone article about the evolution of the Finnish language, if it's a notable enough topic.  A long article about how to grammar applies to numbers is a user guide.  Moreover, the lack of sources seems to indicate that it's also not notable.  I suspect it would be much easier to find sources about the evolution of Finnish or even about how the number system works and where it comes from - perhaps that's notable.  The existence of numbers in Finnish and the fact that Finnish grammar applies to them isn't notable and the difficulty in finding references seems to confirm this.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes you think it doesn't provide that information? It doesn't explicitly give that information to people not acquainted with that subject area, but one who knows something about that broader problem but is not acquainted with the information that is in this article would probably find it relevant. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Michael Hardy or Merge into Numeral system. Doc Quintana (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time I looked (not recently.....) numeral system was mathematical, whereas this is a language article. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ....OK, I've glanced at numeral system again, and that still seems to apply. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Numerals are numerals. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

**Response. You haven't provided a reason why it should stay. May I ask why you think so? Didn't see your "as per". Sorry! Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - sourced, well written, consistent with other articles in Category:Numerals. WP:NUMBER obviously does not apply. No reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Response. Well sourced?  There are no inline citations and the three "references" are grammatical user guides, which makes the article suspect under WP:NOTGUIDE.  The existence of Finnish grammar doesn't make it notable.  I don't think the sources establish notability at all. Also the existence of other, similar articles is not a valid argument to keep this one.  Besides, many of the other articles are actually about numerals (Roman, chinese, etc).  This one is about language and is very much in the style (and content) of an extensive user guide. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Response Citation style is irrelevant for AfD discussion. Coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes notability of topic - no reason to arbitrarily exclude grammars from this benchmark - do we exclude textbooks from reliable sources ? Welsh numerals is a comparable lingusitic article. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Contra to Doc Quintana, this article is not about a relatively universal, or at least relatively language-independent system for written notation of numbers. It is about the grammar of referring to cardinal and ordinal numbers is spoken Finnish. That is why references to grammars of Finnish (not dictionaries, note) are appropriate as references. Grammar is a proper subject for Wikipedia &mdash; see for example Portal:Linguistics, WP:WikiProject Languages, or WP:Requested articles/Social sciences. Cnilep (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Oh, and I should have added that the length of Finnish grammar makes merger there inappropriate. I have, however, added a main tag there linking to Finnish numerals. Cnilep (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: WP:NUMBER does not apply; numerals are not numbers and this is more about linguistics than math. There are similar articles for other languages but coverage is uneven, e.g. French numerals are covered in a section of French language and there doesn't seem to be any coverage of German numerals at all. Whether the article is well sourced is not the issue but rather whether it can be sourced, though it's always preferred that article's creator include sources so the issue doesn't come up. The real issue is notability, but I don't think that can be questioned, go to any bookstore and pick up a generic Finnish language book and numerals will be covered in lesson 4 (approx.). If this was some obscure language that was only spoken by 1000 people then notability would be an issue, but this is a relatively major language and the numeral system is a vital part of it. My only reservation is that the article seems too detailed and raises WP:NOTTEXTBOOK issues. Perhaps the subject is complex enough that this level of detail is needed for proper coverage, but as long as the material is about the subject and does not attempt to teach people how to speak Finnish (which should be included in WikiBooks) I'm OK with it.--RDBury (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Numerals is a word class that exists in Finish, and as such the article has a legitimate topic for a lexicon entry. We have articles on other word classes, e.g. Latin conjugation (redirects from Latin verbs), German nouns etc. These articles tend to be abused by being filled up with declination tables and so on, while the relevant topic would be a systematic discussion of their grammatical and diachronic properties (instead of an extensive listing). So most of the info that the article under discussion here contains is also unnecessary. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies.  Just because other stuff exists, does not mean that this subject is notable.  To be notable, the subject needs secondary sources that are independent and verifiable.  This one has none (other than references to dictionaries or user guides).  Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply We are talking about the numeral system of a major member of the Finno-Ugric languages! Without doing any search, I would immediately be convinced that there is a lot of stuff (probably much of it old, as Finno-Ugric was already quite well-known 80 years ago) on such a topic. Only to think of the stuff that you can do with numerals from a historical perspective (and no doubt this has been done here)! But to name two more recent essays:
 * Schellbach-Kopra, Ingrid: Zahlwort und Phraseologie am Beispiel des Finnischen. In: Sprachen in Finnland und Estland / Hrsg. von Pekka Lehtimäki. Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz, 1999: 79-96.
 * Dolbey, Andy: Constructional inheritance and case assignment in Finnish numeral expressions. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 21/1: 1998, 17-45.
 * Little of what I expect to be mentioned in these articles is addressed in the article in its current form, but that does not change that the topic is quite notable. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comment. I think that the lack of inline citations is telling.  If one were to make an attempt at including them, one would quickly have to conclude that the whole article is nothing more than a user guide.  It's not actually talking about the language at all, just explaining how to use it.  Big difference.  Suspect that the whole topic could be included in Finnish grammar in just a short paragraph.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI there was no mention of numerals in the Finnish grammar article but there was a request for inclusion on the talk page. Because the article is already long and the material cannot be dealt with briefly I created this article - only I forgot to add the link to the new article. Thanks to you I have now done so. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For many articles inline cites aren't really necessary since the information can be found in a single section of the source. Admittedly the article will never reach FA class in that state but that's not the issue here. This should only be a concern for AfD if the connection between the source and the material is unclear, for example listing Calculus Made Easy as a reference for "Noncommutative Romberg integration".--RDBury (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know how stable URLs are for google book searches, but I'll try it: this is a section on numerals on page 129 of Finnish: an essential grammar by Fred Karlsson. this has some remarks on Finnish in a book on evolution of numeral systems in languages generally. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Response: That (the second one) is a good reference. If the article stays, I think the "user guide" content ought to be replaced with this type of discussion.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per RDBury. Could also merge to Finnish language (like the French language article), but it's not a matter of deletion. Also, there references cleary indicate that there are entire book chapters about this. Inline references aren't needed for an article which merely summarized 1-2 such references; see WP:CITE. Asking for an article to be delete on these grounds is ridiculous. Pcap ping  21:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON. Pcap ping  21:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Response: Big difference between bludgeoning and discussing.  But not the forum to defend myself here.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  21:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reason I can see to delete this article on a significant aspect of the Finnish language. Articles on languages are fully encyclopedic, both in the traditional sense and in the sense of Wikipedia. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 10:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have a concensus to retain the article. Can the AfD now be formally withdrawn?--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As nominator, I support the withdrawl. I think there is consensus here.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a copy of this should be placed on Wiktionary, even if it is kept as an article (and this result has happened in the past, where a copy is placed on Wiktionary without deleting the article off Wikipedia) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2010 (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.