Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English words containing a Q not followed by a U

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was non consensus, defaulting to keep. Sasquatch &#08596;&#35762;&#08596;&#30475; 07:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

List of English words containing a Q not followed by a U
This is not an encyclopedic article. It might, possibly, be transwikiied to Wiktionary, and I previously added a tag for that, but it was removed by the author. Uppland 19:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * keep: Wow, what an interesting battle going on here!  As a studier of Chinese, I am particularly interested how Chinese has merged into other languages...the three most common being Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese.  The names of these countries in their repective languages all come from the Chinese...does that mean that they are not real Vietnamese, Korean, or Japanese words?  Of course, the assimilation of Chinese into English is a bit different, being that we deal with romanization.  Therefore, the word meaning "energy" that is described in the list would at one time have been known as Ch'i, or Chi, has become Qi in the official Pinyin system.  This word is becoming more common in English usage as more and more people become interested in Asian culture.  Other good examples are Qin and Qing, the names of two Chinese dynasties.  Perhaps, though, these problems could be solved by naming the article instead, "List of Words in English containing a Q not followed by a U".  The current title does lead the reader to believe that the words listed will be of English etymological origin.Iluvchineselit 18:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think renaming would be a bad idea, but I'm not convinced it's strictly necessary either. Nevertheless, there is hardly such a thing as English etymological origin. Almost every word in English ultimately originates from another language, so it's just a question of how recently they migrated. Still, the article has benefitted greatly just from being on VfD, and a lot more people have read it than otherwise would have done, so really it's all good. Agentsoo 18:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Very true! Iluvchineselit 20:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Scrabbletionary. Joking, just delete as an unencyclopedic list. Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;T&#08596;C 19:39, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * delete: Unremarkable list. "qwerty" is the only one that's not a loan-word (and "tranq", but that's slang). Peter Grey 19:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Since these words aren't really related at all, except for their spelling, I don't think there's really a point in putting it is Wiktionary either. Just delete. --Dmcdevit·t 20:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am the author so obviously I will vote keep but let's discuss this reasonably. I think this is more than a dictionary entry, because it attempts to explain how we end up with such words in English when most people believe they do not exist. Admittedly this bit needs expansion but that's exactly what I'm working on at the moment. After Uppland added the transwiki tag, I posted my reasons for keeping it on Wikipedia to the Talk page. Ten days later, neither he nor anyone else had replied, so I assumed that everyone was satisified with my reasoning - apologies if that was not the case, and I'm quite happy to have the transwiki debate again. To address some of the above concerns: they are mostly loan words, but are considered naturalised according to at least one major dictionary (Collins). As a list of words, it is no worse then any of the other articles in the 'Lists of English words' category. As I say, I'm sorry if I caused any confusion by removing the transwiki tag, but this article really doesn't deserve to be deleted. Agentsoo 20:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You may not have noticed, but Category:lists of words, which is Category:Lists of English words's parent has a "move to wiktionary" tag on it. While we can't and wouldn't just transwiki whole category and its contents, the symbolic meaning is that there has been a judgment that whole lot of them don't belong here. Maybe I should list some today. --Dmcdevit·t 20:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for missing your talkpage comment. I just feel that the connection between these words is trivial, basically just the result of certain conventions for transcribing from various other languages. It might be worth mentioning somewhere (in the article on English spelling or in a general article on loanwords in English, which might exist somewhere under some title) that there are words in English with a Q not followed by a U, that this is a result of borrowing, and proceed to give an example or two from each language with an explanation of why this or that particular phoneme has been represented by a Q in English. I just don't see the need for a comprehensive list. Uppland 20:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether a particular list of words are connected in a trivial or non-trivial way is totally a matter of opinion, so if you disagree on that then fair enough. I hadn't noticed that the parent cat is up for transwikiing; thanks for the info. If a judgement has been made that these articles belong on Wiktionary then by all means move them, but I don't think deletion is the answer, and would be disappointed as I have put quite a bit of time into this article. Agentsoo 20:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with this list? I found it very interesting, so i want to keep it. I think one of the better features of Wiki is disproving commonly belived facts, which this list does. Jono 20:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title is a misnomer. At first, I would have said keep.  But upon reading, I say delete. Thorns Among Our Leaves 20:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what is misleading about the title, but I'd be more than willing to listen to suggested improvements - please elaborate. Either way, it doesn't seem right to delete an article purely because it has the wrong title. Agentsoo 21:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The words aren't english, persay, just romanized. Delete. humblefool&reg; 21:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * They are naturalised in English, at least according to the Collins dictionary. In that sense they are as English as any other word lifted directly from other languages, i.e. the vast majority of English words. Being more recent naturalisations may make them not 'true' English words in your eyes, but the dictionary has to be the authority here. Agentsoo 21:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rule of thumb: ''If the only reference you need is a dictionary, then its not an encyclopedia article, since Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary. --Dmcdevit·t 21:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * The dictionary is not the only reference required; the opening paragraphs are clearly encyclopaedic. Nevertheless I don't object to moving the page to Wiktionary, at least in preference to deleting it altogether. Agentsoo 21:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * per se, as those Romans would write if they were late enough to use lowercase, rather than "persay". Sorry to be a spelling nitpicker, but it's a VfD on an article about 'spelling'.  Barno 23:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Mainly because the vast majority of these are loan words. There is much scope for differences in spelling anyway because the Q is only used to approximate a particular letter sound in other languages. In the New Oxford English Dictionary at least, they are nearly all listed differently anyway, without a lone Q (some with K, QU, CH, etc). I also agree that "tranq" should be removed from the list whatever happens because it is just a shortening (the OED spells it "trank" anyway). However, it is an interesting article, hence the "weak" and I might yet change my vote because it would be relatively "harmless" to keep. Bobbis 21:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My criterion was for them to appear in at least one major dictionary. The NODE is considerably shorter (fewer than half as many words) and less permissive than Collins, so I suppose it is not that surprising that the alternative spellings are not specified in it. Regarding Tranq, it is a shortened form, but it is not an abbreviation; it is written without a dot, just like 'vet' which I think most people would agree is a word in its own right. Glad you found the page interesting though, and I hope I can resolve your issues with it. Agentsoo 21:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting list. Doesn't belong in a dictionary. CalJW 21:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting and educational. But say a bit more about them being loan words, and about the existence of alternative spellings (as in contribution to this discussion from Bobbis. --Hugh2414 21:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea, thanks. I've elaborated on this point. Agentsoo 22:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Can't see a good reason to delete it james gibbon  21:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, though expand to include more discussion of history (?), etc... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Hugh2414 & Flcelloguy. …Markaci 2005-07-25 T 23:49:59 Z
 * Keep, but withold this document from the paper version of Wikipedia, whenever that comes out. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:WINAD. Most of the words aren't English, and the fact that they are loanwords and the pronunciation info is content fit for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. android  79  01:00, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is about the words as much as it is a list of them; maybe the title should be changed. See, for example, fuck - a whole entry about the word itself, rather than the concept. Agentsoo 09:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting and notable. Whether they are loan words or not. hansamurai &#39151;&#20365; (burp) 01:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, all bar qwerty are not English words. That would be because...there are almost no true English words to go in this article...so we don't need the article. -Splash 01:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See No true Scotsman Agentsoo 09:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is encyclopedia territory rather than dictionary. If not kept, could be merged with a suitable article such as English spelling. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Q. Plenty of room for it there. A list like this is just stupid. And verify that these are actual English words. -R. fiend 02:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The list has no place in a dictionery. DS1953 03:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Q, please don't delete or transwiki... the introductory section could use some fleshing out, but this is basically an encyclopedic treatment of one (arcane) aspect of English orthography. -- Visviva 07:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The rarity of such words makes them notable, and such a list interesting. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The list has no place in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic stuff about the QU rule and things that break it might be appropriate under an article on the English orthography or Q. Felix the Cassowary 10:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Interesting. - Longhair | Talk 12:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable to anyone interested in English orthography. Kappa 13:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep reasonable list... Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 15:08, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, since the general knowledge (rather than just list-of-loanwords) has been expanded the last couple of days. Still not sure how encyclopedic vs. dictionaric it is, but it's interesting to more than just nuts like us Scrabble players.  Barno 23:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is just the sort of information I come to wikipedia to find. --Measure 23:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete these are not english words per se but english translations/transliterations of mostly arabic loan words, arranged into a list of dicdefs - wikipedia is not a dictionary. JamesBurns 08:24, 27 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.