Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 14:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a word list or lexicon and so fails WP:NOT and WP:DICDEF. Please note the precedent of List of English words of French origin which is moving to Wiktionary as the potential number of words in such cases is enormous and not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Note also that this article is a focus for nationalist dispute about the origin of the word Eelam which relates to an article which is subject to editing constraints: Tamil Eelam. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per Nomination. Already we have the Mess.ThesaiRao (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * KeepDelete and move to wictionary, also merge anything salvagable with articles such as Tamil language. Tamil has over 20% of its words derived from Indo-Aryan languages. So we are talking about thousands upon thousands of words. Manipravalam was a dialect of Tamil that had over 90% of its words from Sanskrit an Indo-Aryan langauge. Further Robert Caldwell, in his book A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Languages considers Malayalam an ancient off-shoot of classical Tamil that over time gained a large amount of Sanskrit vocabulary and lost the personal terminations of verbs. So in effect we will be recreating an entire language and its vocabulary in wikipedia. This is a typical wictionary project.Taprobanus (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * with the change in direction, I vote to Keep Taprobanus (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have voted to keep but still I see some issues with WP:CANVASS, here, here, here, here, hereTaprobanus (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The messages in question consist mainly of "Kindly have a look at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil vote at its AfD." That's consistent with: "To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions." As I was one of those connected, I can say that I did my own research and made up my own mind. I have in the past been contacted by people and have not supported them. And knowing some of the other people contacted I can say that they are also people who make up their own mind. If this article had been non-notable they would certainly have !voted delete. There's been no offense committed here.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The only issue I see here is with user:Taprobanus', might I say, dishonest attempt to paint user:Srkris' messages as being vios of WP:CANVASS and by implication also casts aspersions on the editors he's linked to. Poor. Sarvagnya 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article has been (and is being) revised to make it less of a mere list of loanwords and more of a historical analysis on Indo-Aryan borrowings in Tamil, along with pertinent examples to elucidate the analysis.­ ­ Kris (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if improved if it actually does get revised enough. It must have context, not just be a dictionary. Nothing wrong with some examples, explained, not just listed, but they don't make the article. See the various pages at Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin for various ways to do it.  There are a great many such articles, and it's a perfectly appropriate topic. The example for French words mentioned by Col.Warden is a poor precedent to follow --thankfully, we're not in the least bound by it, and a representative number should be left as illustrations. Anyway, even it does not delete the article,  merely move the examples. So his argument really is not for delete, but keep and edit. - Individual words, every one of the enormous number mentioned, they are what go into wiktionary.  DGG (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article is not List of I-A loanwords in Tamil.  It is Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil.  If it is resembling the former, then fix it.  A mindboggling number of articles are in very bad shape on wikipedia, but we don't go around deleting them.  No reason this should be deleted.Sarvagnya 05:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep of course. The topic is appropriately academic, has reliable scholarly work on which to build the article, and given what it says here is "one of the most vital aspects of the Indian cultural history". The article needs editing and to be pushed in the right direction, but without doubt the topic fulfills the requirements of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Just bear in mind that at one time nearly all our featured articles were in a poor state and some of our most interesting articles have been the subject of intense edit wars. That the writing and maintenance of an article is problematic should not stop us from doing the right thing.  SilkTork  *YES! 07:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is a lot less listy than it was when this AfD began, and is starting to move in the right direction. As SilkTork points out, it's an important topic from a socio-cultural perspective, in addition to its linguistic interest.  There's obviously still a lot to be done, but it's a good start. -- Arvind (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Author is sourcing the article and it is a topic worthy of inclusion. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep ref improvements made to the article --Jack1956 (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2008 (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.