Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linguistic titles for the homeless around the world


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic titles for the homeless around the world


It's a dictionary of translations of the word "homeless" into many languages, along with a suggestion that conclusions can be drawn from all of the translations. This fails two basic policies. There is no evidence that anyone, outside of the Wikipedia editor(s) who wrote this, actually has drawn any such conclusions. I had a look and couldn't find any such conclusions published anywhere. Certainly the article cites no sources that do so. It cites dictionaries (and Wikipedia itself, which of course is not a source at all). From dictionaries as sources one gets a dictionary as an article. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is a dictionary seasoned with original research. It should not have been split out of homelessness. It should have been zapped as original research in situ, with appropriate use of wiktionary or wikt:homeless#English|homeless ]] if pointing people to a translating dictionary was actually desired. Uncle G (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See, when they came up with "per nom," it was for deletion rationales like this. Delete per nominator's reasoning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as blatant dictionary material. WillOakland (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete The assertion the nom mentions is cited. The article includes various ways the homeless are referred toin different languages. I don't see what the problem is with that. But without citations to substantial coverage it can't stand on its own. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's the citation for the factual claim "the term for homelessness reveals the cultural and societal perception and classification of a homeless person"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's cited, but the reference doesn't back up the claim at all. I think someone may have assumed the fact that it was cited meant the reference automatically checked out. --Movingday29 (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this sort of thing is what a dictionary does. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sure they could be cited, but so could a list of words like "door" or "bird" in other languages. --Movingday29 (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not babelfish. Themfromspace (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ordinarily I'd vote "transwiki to Wiktionary", but in this case many of the translations have confused the words "homeless", "vagrant", "beggar", and (in one case) "unemployed" to the point that I'm suspicious of the quality of the rest. This doesn't belong here, so out it goes. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 05:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, unfortunately. I was unable to find substantial research discussing if/how different languages' terms for homelessness shapes their society's view of the homeless.  Interesting idea, and would make for some interesting research, but until someone else does that research and publishes it independently, this doesn't belong in Wikipedia per WP:OR and WP:DICT. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep can use some development, but this is not a mere translation of the word "homeless" in different languages but rather an interesting window into how different cultures treat the concept of being with a home (e.g. are you a loser or are you a victim or somewhere in between). Look at the Spanish definitions, which include "desperate, helpess, unprotected, deserted " and Swedish "someone lying outside"  This article provides a basis for an encyclopedic look at the concept of homelessness around the world.  Scarykitty (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Who opened this window? This article may be an interesting window into different societies, but it is an original window into these societies. Nobody has previously come to this conclusion, and thus it is original research.
 * Moreover, who says these are all synonyms, and why were these words chosen? I could offer a number of words from American English, each, if chosen without consideration of the others, casting a certain view of speakers of American English. Bum, drifter, vagrant, downtrodden, homeless, dispossessed, beggar, down-on-his-luck... I don't doubt that each of these languages has multiple words as well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And, indeed, this is exactly what has happened. Using the Spanish translations as an example, sin techo (without roof) and sin hogar (without home) are the only accurate translations of "homeless" provided. The others — vagabundo (vagabond), indigente (indigent), desamparado (forsaken), pordiosero (person who goes around saying "for the love of god" - beggar) — all have different connotations. Concluding that this has any bearing on cultural views of the homeless is simply incorrect; no sane linguist would try to make that kind of assertion based on data this flimsy. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's a dictionary and original research rolled into one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)


 * 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.