Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New Zealand words


 * 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. Consensus is that we are not a dictionary.  Sandstein  08:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

List of New Zealand words

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even if it was, this article is mostly original research, written in an un-encyclopedic manner and getting a lot of things just plain wrong. Anon 10:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pretty clear violation of WP:NOTDICT.--Michig (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree, this is a list of dictionary definition, many of which are orignal research, wrong or irrelevant. AIR corn (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopedic list article about the lexicon of a variety of English. This list article is nowhere near being a dicdef. Any problems with sourcing and accuracy can be solved by editing it. Angr (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming a list like this is deemed appropriate for Wikipedia, how does one go about fixing it?. It desperately needs inclusion criteria, but that is near to impossible. What Maori words should be included as everyone of them would belong in a list of New Zealand words? How is it determined that a word is unique to New Zealand? Why is there a section on words shared with other countries (that would include every word ever said in New Zeqland)? An article on the New Zealand lexicon with a few choice examples would work, but a list is just too unweildy. AIR corn (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One way would be to limit it to words that merit articles. postdlf (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any word that does not have its own article would need a reference. This would require someone to go through the existing list against one or more of the several dictionaries of New Zealand English, eg The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary ISBN 0195584511, The Dictionary Of New Zealand English ISBN 9780195583809 or Oxford Dictionary of New Zealandisms ISBN 9780195584974. These works include at least 12,000 words, so we would still need some further criteria to restrict entries. In terms of having a "few choice examples", that would be better included in New Zealand English than having a standalone article.- gadfium 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The title is problematic, and the current inclusion criteria ("a list of words used in New Zealand English") is hopelessly vague. Still, it is possible to develop reasonable criteria for inclusion and to limit the included items to words noted as New Zealand-isms in reliable sources. Compare Regional vocabularies of American English or the "Vocabulary" section of articles such as Canadian English or Variation in Australian English. I don't see any reason to limit items to words that have their own articles (any more than, say, Timeline of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season should be limited to storms with their own articles), but I do think that entries should cite reliable sources that call the items New Zealand regional vocabulary. Cnilep (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge. The article pertains more so to language usage and lexicon of New Zealand rather than straight-forward dictionary definitions. That said, the article title is too vague and not acceptable in it's current form, but the content should be kept. References are also needed, but these can likely be obtained in time. The best solution would be to merge or create a seperate article on New Zealand English and it's regional variations, and include some of the material there. Grillo7 (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I recently moved this article from New Zealand words to better reflect the actual content of the article, but on reading people's comments here I think that may not have been such a good idea. I agree that in its current incarnation it is problematic, but I think if we move it to say, New Zealand vocabulary, and edit it to reflect scholarly studies on the topic then it would be a perfectly acceptable article. On the other hand, wouldn't want to keep it as a list; I was reading around the subject and found a claim that only 5% of the words used in New Zealand are unique to the country (I don't remember where, sorry). Multiply that by the 12,000 words in the dictionaries cited above, and we get a list of at least 600 words - still rather unwieldy for Wikipedia. A list of New Zealand words may be more suited to a category on Wiktionary, but an article on New Zealand words would work. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a New Zealand vocabulary article would work, make it a content fork from the section in New Zealand English. A major advantage of an article over a list is that it allows more editorial judgement and items can put in context better. Considering there are only a few inline references in this list I am not sure how much help it would be in developing such an article though. AIR corn (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to proposed New Zealand vocabulary article. Deletion reasons perWP:WINAD and Anon's argument. The latest edit to the page shows one of the biggest problems with it ... inclusion of unsourced nonsense. I've lived in this country for over 50 years and I've never heard the word "Wog" used to describe "persons of Mediteranean decent" except in news reports sourced from Australia. It may be used in some obscure sections of society, but without sources it's impossible to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiore (talk • contribs)
 * Delete and redirect to New Zealand vocabulary as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2012 (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.