Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English words of Italian origin


 * 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 a strong consensus to delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

List of English words of Italian origin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Violates the policy WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is really a mini-dictionary, with a very slight discussion at the top. An article on Italian influence of the English language might be possible, but I don't see how a list of words belongs in an encyclopedia which says it is not a dictionary. Borock (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, with regrets, as a dictionaryesque list. Be sure to userfy if the content creator wants this, there must be a place somewhere on the web for it and a lot of work has gone into this piece's construction. Carrite (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How about Wiktionary? It seems to me that a good digital dictionary should be searchable by the origin of words. Then readers can generate their own lists. Borock (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, no regrets. Articles of this type exist for dozens of different languages, and litter WP like bait for cranks who bloat them up with non-existent words. The whole lot of them should go, per WP:NAD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - may be rescued, see WP:BEFORE and WP:LIST. It is sourced, although admittedly poorly.  I'm not sure that Wiktionary has that sort feature or searchable lists; it primarily uses categories. I'm willing to change my mind, but right now, this looks like an easy rescue. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing in WP:List supports this kind of page. The closest thing is a glossary page. "A Glossary page presents encyclopedically explanatory definitions for specialized terms in a subject area." This is not a glossary since the words are not on the list because of a common subject area, but rather because of their origins. You are correct that the sourcing is poor, but that is not the problem that I see. What if you had lists of English words of Anglo-Saxon, French, Galic, Norse, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Native American, Chinese, Japanese origins, and so forth?  Put them all together and what would you have? Borock (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:IINFO. There are thousands of words in the English language that come from Italian. Listing them all isn't the function of an encyclopedia. As suggested above, an article on the Italian language's influence on the English language is appropriate, but this article is not.  Them From  Space  23:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors interested in this discussion may also be interested in Articles for deletion/Italianism. Cnilep (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - unsourced, frequently inaccurate content (I spotted several words that come to English via Latin by way of French, not Italian); additionally, Category:Italian loanwords and Wiktionary can take care of this. Neutralitytalk 00:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Any problems can be edited and fixed. This is encyclopedic information.  Just because something exist in a category doesn't mean it can't be in a list also.  Easier to navigate through the list, and all entries have a link to their own articles.   D r e a m Focus  02:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't have a category for this specific list. The category mentioned (Italian loanwords) above doesn't duplicate this list, it is more narrow in scope. This article allows any word that has evolved from Italian origins (ex: model came from modello), but the category is restricted to Italian words that we use in everyday conversation.  Them From  Space  02:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything you are talking about is dictionary material. An encyclopedia is supposed to be about topics, a dictionary about words. This is the main point of the "not a dictionary" policy.Borock (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:LIST It aids in navigation, shows links to articles of a similar nature. Its a fine list article.   D r e a m Focus  16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: due to problems of potential size, ambiguity (includes many words that came to English from Italian via other languages) and sourcing. How do we define "origin" in a non-WP:OR and consistent manner? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete either the whole page or every un-referenced entry. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A quality list that may be most useful for students of Italian and amateur linguists. Origin can be defined as any word traceable back to Italian, regardless of whether if came via an intermediate language and regardless of whether it has a deeper etymology. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no opinion on the merits of this particular article, but am wondering why it is the only one AfD'd from the whole Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2011; 16:17 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at a handful. Quite a few I tagged as potentially not notable, needing references or needing more references. I encourage you to do the same. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This list came to my attention because it was linked from another AfD. I'd be happy to vote to delete any other mini-dictionary lists.  And I certainly have nothing against Italy. Borock (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the next one: Articles for deletion/List of English words of Korean origin. Borock (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. As I said, the whole lot of them should go, and I'd vote against them all per WP:NAD. I've just voted against the Korean article, in fact. Thanks for the heads up. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2011 (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.