Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latinic


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus – Gurch 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Latinic
Explained at Talk:Latinic. --Joy &#91;shallot] 11:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nomination is for the article failing WP:OR.  Tevildo 13:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate for the time being. Googling for "Latinic" convinced me that the word is used fairly widely for Latin alphabet based scripts that have a one to one correspondence with Cyrillic alphabet variants.  As you note on talk, we already have articles for the use of Latin alphabets for Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian.  Smerdis of Tlön 14:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But notice how the Google results aren't from relevant, scholarly sources, but mostly some random sites. If you further narrow down the search to site:.yu, you'll only get 154 hits. For site:.hr, there's just 26 hits, and absolutely no hits for the same search on site:.bs. It's simply not a commonly used word, it's not used among the linguists, and it's pointless for us to promote it by having the article. It's like having a separate article for the misspelling cirilic (Cyrillic). --Joy &#91;shallot] 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The 38,000-odd results strike me as fairly significant: the word is used by some people, even if they aren't scholars. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to point people to where the information they seek can be found.
 * Well, given the disparity between 38,000 and the 154+26+0, I can't quite wrap my head around it. Who are the relevant people using this word, if the native speakers aren't doing so on their sites, and English dictionaries don't do so, either? I also tried to check the latter part of those 38K hits, but for example this link to the results starting at #550 says "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 501 already displayed". So I'm not quite sure where the other 37,500 went. Spam fodder? --Joy &#91;shallot]
 * That's the way Google works. There's always an arbitrary cutoff.  Smerdis of Tlön 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. I knew that it never returns more than 1000 results to a query, but this thing threw me off. In any case I see little reason to believe that there are too many scholarly sources among the rest of these results we can't see. --Joy &#91;shallot] 00:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there some kind of Balkan ethnic conflict subtext in your perceived opposition to "promoting" the word? Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I resent that kind of a question - why should there be partisanship involved just because of my origin? We're all so uncivilized here on the bloody Balkans, and we can't argue about anything without prejudice and ethnic conflict, is that right? :P --Joy &#91;shallot] 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do get weary when various unfamiliar nationalisms are exported to the English language Wikipedia. Let's face it, this seems to be a classic case for a disambiguation; "Latinic" does get some use --- maybe just a little, but some --- as the name for the adaptations of the Latin alphabet for several south Slavic languages, which within living memory were counted as one language.  Because the word is used by somebody, we need to point people who come looking for it to the sources of current information, and if "Latinic" is thought wrong or inappropriate now, the reasons should also be explained.  What we should not do is fear that such an entry "promotes" a word because it's the "wrong" word.  Smerdis of Tlön 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there is merit to your argument, but I still contend that it's too hard to work at articles where the title is a badly done direct translation of a local term into English and whose main content already exists elsewhere. It should be a disambiguation (more like dis-error-ification) page at most. --Joy &#91;shallot]

Comment: for an amusing analogous case, see the article kreten. --Joy &#91;shallot] 15:43, 4 July 2006 (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.