Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English words of Slovak 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

List of English words of Slovak origin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN list, fails LISTN and assuredly the GNG. This threadbare "list" (of all of three words) purports to list "English words" of Slovak origin. Of the three, one is the conglomerate name of a sub-subsidiary guitar maker, one is of a Slovakian musical instrument listed in a dictionary of musical instruments, and the third is cited to a Slovakian source. In all three cases I would strongly dispute they are seen as "English" words at all, and certainly there are no sources claiming that they are. Notability tagged for over ten years. Deprodded with the unhelpful explanation of “How does WP:NLIST feel about List of English words of Slovak origin?” I’m not sure what the guideline itself would think about it, were it sentient, but perhaps live editors will have their own notions.   Ravenswing     13:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions.   Ravenswing      13:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. For what it's worth, the Oxford English Dictionary Online attributes the word "dobro" to Czech origin (specifically, "< the name of its Czech-U.S. inventors, the Do(pěra Bro(thers; the coincidence with Czech dobro (the) good, a good thing, may also help to explain the choice of this form") and doesn't list "fujara" or "čačky" as English words at all. I would need better sources to believe that these words are (a) English words and (b) of Slovak origin. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that we do have an English word that corresponds to "čačky", namely, tchotchke. But Merriam-Webster says "tchotchke" came to English from Yiddiah, derived from the obsolete Polish czaczko (and apparently other Slavic languages have similar words), so I don't think we can necessarily give the Slovak language credit for this word. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sorry for being terse/cheeky in my deprod rationale. I'm refering to this WP:LISTN bit: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y"). List notability is not easily gaugued so these are not good prod candidates. Especially so here because of the existence of many other English words of x origin articles. If you are making a WP:TNT argument, that is also not a good use of prod. ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: I very rarely make TNT arguments, and it certainly would not have been appropriate here; the article is neither incomprehensibly written nor flooded with adspam. But my issue is this: whether NN lists make good prod candidates generally is not, and should not have been, the point.  At every step of the prod/AfD process, we don't deal with broad categories.  We deal with individual articles.  Is this list notable? is the only question we should be -- and are -- dealing with.  It took me just a few minutes to determine that it was not.  I don't think I'm out of line to expect the same level of care in a deprod.   Ravenswing      16:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been deprodding where I believe the article shouldn't be deleted or where I would expect some controversy if the deletion were done at AfD. This deprod fell into the latter category for me and I hope I've sufficiently explained why. ~Kvng (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Can't believe we have this article here for so many years.--Darwinek (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This article belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I prodded this, which was rejected. Agree with nom, little evidence for entries and definitely not a notable topic. Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2020 (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.