Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian words of possible Dacian 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   no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete this article at this time; nor is there a clear consensus to preserve the article although User:Biruitorul has indeed brought forward a valid argument for its preservation. (This close does not indicate a final choice of name for the article, as this was a point of contention during the discussion. A final name can be decided, through consensus, in another venue where it can receive proper attention.) &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin
79.112.3.217 (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The name of the article is "List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin". However if you read the first sentence you will see that none of them are Dacian on the list. "Below is a list of Romanian words believed by early scholars to be of Dacian origin, but which have since been attributed to other origins (Latin, Albanian, Slavic, Greek) in most cases." Therefore this list does not make any sense. Moreover, its sources mainly support non-Dacian origins (see "notes" section). Fakirbakir (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep "The list is relevant for the vocabulary of Romanian language. Many works by specialists refer to words of possible Dacian origin" Eurocentral (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Iaaasi, you already voted, and please, decide: use IP address or sockpuppet user name. You have used both above. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no SPI showing that this is a sock, stop personal attacks 82.79.213.79 (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep An unsourced statement from the article ("Below is a list of Romanian words believed by early scholars to be of Dacian origin, but which have since been attributed to other origins (Latin, Albanian, Slavic, Greek) in most cases.") cannot be a reason for deletion. According to the historian Nicolae Stoicescu, there are 160 - 170 Romanian words of Dacian origin (the source is in the article). 79.117.186.76 (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: ISP's first edit. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not see any words on the list from Stoicescu. This list is absolutely unreliable and highly misleading. It does not fit Wikipedia standards. Is Stoicescu a linguist? According to the Romanian Wikipedia he is not even a linguist. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * From another source: "Linguistic studies made by specialists have led to the identification in the Romanian language of 170 words of Dacian origin in different fields." 86.127.21.225 (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not matter. The whole list is just a mess. It is useless. Would you like to create a blank page instead of deletion? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The deletion request is based on non-sense and political agenda, constantly pushed by this user. The list name says it all "List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin". I agree it needs more work, such as newer sources and cleanup, but the user's attitude and sarcastic comments don't help in any way in that direction. If he wants to help, he should do it with an open mind and honesty. Otherwise, he should take his political agenda elsewhere. This is not the right place. All the books/authors in the Sources section treat the listed words as Dacian or Thracian. Even the titles of some of the books have it very clear in them. Ion I. Russu, Limba traco-dacilor (i.e. The language of the Thraco-Dacians); Ariton Vraciu, Limba daco-geților (i.e. The language of the Daco-Getae). Sorin Olteanu, "The TDM Palatal" ("Sorin Olteanu's Thraco-Daco-Moesian Languages Project"); The statement Moreover, its sources mainly support non-Dacian origins is a pure fabrication for the un-advised reviewer of this "deletion request". What this article really needs are inline citations from the mentioned sources plus newer, modern sources. However, the research on this field is limited in the modern times, hence, the latest good sources remain the books from Russu and others.WP:Other stuff exists and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary are ridiculous and frivolous arguments. By your logic, would you delete the hundred or so articles under Category:Lists of English words, particularly List of English words from indigenous languages of the Americas and Category:Lists of English words of Celtic origin?--Codrin.B (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know what Wikipedia standards mean? You try to save the dead duck. Hasdeu's work is 120 years old. Russu and Olteanu are not linguists and most of the words on the list have counter theories..... Fakirbakir (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Russu and Olteanu are not linguists?! Olteanu is the top linguist at the Vasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology and THE expert in the Dacian and Thracian language topic still alive. And so was Russu. Can you stop making such blatantly false statements?--Codrin.B (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Russu was a historian and specialized in epigraphy. I do not think he is a linguist. However you are right with Olteanu he is primarily a linguist (my mistake). Fakirbakir (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong delete although WP:Other stuff exists any "list of words" is a mini-dictionary and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Besides that any reference book, encyclopedia or dictionary, is for factual information not for things that someone sometime somewhere said were possible. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. (1) The article is mainly based on the work of a late 19th-century scholar (Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu) whose views have not been universally accepted. (2) That there are words in the Romanian language which are of Dacian origin is only a POV, which cannot be substantiated: there are less than a 100 documented Dacian words and none of them is attested among the Romanian words of "possible Dacian origin". Therefore these words can be of "possible Thracian origin" or of "possible Illyrian origin", as well. (3) There are many words in all languages the origin of which is uncertain, but there are no separate articles/lists for them. I think there is no need to create such lists. (4) WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't read the article. Russu is by far the most quoted source (see the Sources column in the table), and he is the authority on the Dacian language field to this day. I wonder why only the Hungarian editors with known radical views against Dacian-Romanian ties and Daco-Romanian continuity are voting for this ridiculous delete request?! This article makes these ties obvious, hence it is adamant to be removed at any cost to fulfill the Hungarian revisionism agenda. No Chinese or Peruvians interested in the topic, perhaps with a WP:NPOV?--Codrin.B (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Codrinb, are you sure that Kitfoxxe is a Hungarian editor who is driven by chauvinist, nationalist, revisionist, ...ist, ...ist, ...ist Hungarian purposes? I suggest that you should forget this strange idea of a world where Hungarians are working everywhere in order to destroy the well-established fortress of the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity. Borsoka (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Codrinb, please avoid personal attacks against Hungarian editors. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - regardless of the scientific merit of the concept, it's an idea that has had wide circulation for well over a century and has been amply covered by reliable sources. Eminescu, journalist and national poet, was keenly interested in these theories. Historia, the popular history magazine, recently published an article on the Dacians, including discussion of the words on this list. The tone indicates the list is fairly well known by the average Romanian reader. Dan Caragea, art critic with training in linguistics, recently discussed the list at length. It appears in university curricula (p.29). There's at least one book solely devoted to this topic. Yes, the book is from 1983, at a time when Protochronism was rampant, but we don't fail to cover ideas that have fallen into discredit (Alchemy, Phrenology), and this one still has some currency.
 * I don't really understand the claims that this is an invalid topic. Not only has it explicitly received academic attention, but we have a whole Category:Lists of loanwords. Around 60 Lists of English words by country or language of origin! All right, there's WP:WAX to consider, but clearly the consensus is in favor of such lists in principle. Individual lists may not be worth keeping, but the general idea has been accepted.
 * Finally, I agree this could use some tightening here and there, some tweaks to make various things clearer, but that is a matter for the editing process. The topic itself is a notable one, and there is no plausible reason to delete. - Biruitorul Talk 17:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Biruitorul, sorry but for me even the idea of an article whose title contains a weasel word ("possible") is absurd. Borsoka (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a long time ago you were not so adverse to the word "possible". You made a renaming proposal in the past, where your proposed new title still contained this word :P Talk:List_of_Romanian_words_of_possible_Dacian_origin 86.127.21.226 (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was not brave enough to propose the deletion of the whole article. I only wanted to improve the title of the article in order to reflect its actual subject: it is a list of words which may or may not have originated from the substratum of the Romanian language, which may or may not have been the Dacian language. However, Fakirbakir made the only logical proposal: the whole article should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * List of possible dwarf planets.
 * Way to ignore my entire argument and respond with an ignoratio elenchi. If it's the title you find problematic, call it, I don't know, Dacian substrate theory. I've shown that the theory is widely mentioned and that is enough for keeping the article, even if you or I or a majority of the linguistic community have doubts as to its veracity. - Biruitorul Talk 19:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I do not understand what is the relevance of an article of words with undefined or multiple-defined origin. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The list itself has acquired notability by being republished and discussed in reliable sources. It may be inaccurate; it may even be totally discredited. That does not matter so much as the academic attention it has received. - Biruitorul Talk 13:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Since the subject is impossible to prove 100% (that far in history nothing is 100%), hence the tittle "possible". The article needs some improving or maybe even some tittle change but that is not the reason to delete it. Keep. Adrian (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore WP is not the place of propaganda of false and silly Daco-Romanian continuity. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let`s keep our personal attitude and crazy opinions for ourself. Keep to the facts. Calling a Daco-Romanian continuity propaganda or similar is just POV and has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion while ignoring some major facts. You voted delete based on absolutely nothing tangible except that you don`t believe in it...Adrian (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no facts. That is the problem. The etymology of these words are just theories (and not to mention their counter theories)....Fakirbakir (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fakirbakir. This article is a hoax, there are inconsistencies between the title and the content. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A dictionary is a work where words are defined. The purpose of this list is not to define words, but to enumerate words supposed by some to be of Dacian origin. Moreover, if you have such a problem with the concept, feel free to start nominating for deletion the entries at Lists of English words by country or language of origin. - Biruitorul Talk 19:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a huge difference. The most of the supposed Dacian words exist only in theory as opposed to English words. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The theory itself is notable. It may be completely inaccurate or outdated, but it's been covered by reliable sources, which is our basic standard for notability. - Biruitorul Talk 13:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I refer to Norden1990's remark below. Hungarian words of possible Sumerian origin are also discussed in reliable sources: they deny the relibiality of such lists. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that this user, besides his insults on the valid Daco-Romanian continuity theory (which is the main item at stake here and the main reason for the presence of Hungarian voters) and ridiculous claims as being a Hoax, is also WP:CANVASS-ing illegally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary. What have Romanian and Dacian words got to do with WP Hungary, if not an attempt to get Hungarian nationalists to vote here?!--Codrin.B (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Take it easy, I suggest. Yes, my opinion is that Daco-Romanian continuity is false, ridiculous and scientifically unfounded, but I hope there is still freedom of opinion here. Furthermore I tried to involve more editors to this debate, because it's getting stale and we start to argue with each other's political identity (as evidenced by your above comment). WP:Hungary is only one of the projects where I have written. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We'll pretend that we don't realize that you posted on other Wikiproject talk pages only after Codrin.B expressed here his concerns about a possible canvassing case ;). If I were you, I would have given the pretext that a portion of Hungary was once a part of the Dacian kingdom :) 79.117.188.152 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Canvassing = I tell somebody how to vote. Well, that did not happen. Significant part of today's Romania belonged to Hungary until 1918/20, so this article is of interest to the Hungarian project (and whole Central Europe, of course). --Norden1990 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Silly or not the Daco-Romanian continuity's theory exists, as well as the theory that some of Romanian's words are coming all the way back from Dacian. The theory is very notable, as a large sum of schoolars have poured lots of ink on works with pros and cons. The article needs improvements, but I disagree with deletion. All the best, --Silenzio76 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. The debate is not about the validity of a theory, but about the relevance of an article the subject of which is a list of words of unknown origin. Those who suggest that it should be deleted say that there is no need to maintain such lists. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Borsoka, please see AdiJapan's remark from below the list is notable and was used, again and again, to debate or to defend the theory that Romanian language started as a mixture of Latin and Dacian. Those whom support the deletion of this article using Wikipedia is not a dictionary misinterpret the policy. This article is not about a single word. The article is not complete, and shall not be treated as a simple list, the list shall be just a section of the article. The list is a notable encyclopedic subject, no question of that. --Silenzio76 (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Even though the purpose of the article seems to be to point out that the Romanian language has Dacian origin words, I tend to agree with Kitfoxxe that any list of words is essentially a type of dictionary. The main article on the Romanian language mentions the historical debate about the origin of the Romanian language, and it seems to me anything that sources from this list could add to an encyclopedia could be included there without getting too much like a dictionary. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By this principle, all the word lists from Category:Lists_of_loanwords should be deleted. True? 86.126.34.91 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, if they serve functionally as a dictionary as this one does. Some of them, however, contain significant encyclopedic content beyond simply a list of words, and thus should be kept.  It is a case by case issue, and I do not think that this one provides enough extra value to be more than a dictionary. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - can we please not veer into bizarre declarations, such as "this article is a hoax"? We are talking about a theory - disputed, debated, perhaps discredited - but nonetheless a theory with some stature and adherence.
 * On that note, I found something rather interesting. I did a Google Books search for three of the more common of these words, gard, grumaz and copil, which don't normally appear together except as part of this list.
 * Behold the results. Book after book after book reproducing more or less the same list. Pretty conclusive evidence that this has topic been treated by reliable sources, I'd say.
 * Now, you might say the books are influenced by communism/nationalism/parochialism/protochronism/romanticism/legionnairism/whatever. Or that they're outdated. But you cannot legitimately claim they are all part of an elaborate hoax stretching across 130 years that we should all just ignore. As I've shown, there is ample coverage of this very list in published scientific works. - Biruitorul Talk 14:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The list is an encyclopedic subject in itself. It doesn't matter if those words are truly of Dacian origin; what matters is that many authors have compiled such lists (all of which overlap significantly or are even identical) and studied and discussed this set of words extensively. It is almost impossible to find a book on the history of the Romanian language that does not contain such a list or a subset of it. As Biruitorul said above, on Google Books there are over 100 works in various languages that contain this list in one shape or another. For the same reason, the article belongs here in Wikipedia, not in Wiktionary; moving it there is certainly not the solution. — Adi  Japan  15:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not matter??? sorry, but it is a shame. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * According to this opinion, I also could create a List of Hungarian words of possible Sumerian origin. There are also "reliable" sources about that. This article is completely a hoax, I maintain my position. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hungarian-Sumerian connections constitute pseudoscientific or at best fringe views (as shown by mainstream criticism and lack of mainstream acceptance). The same would need to be shown here for the two cases to be compareable. There is nothing a priori implausible about Dacian loanwords in Romanian. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Tropylium, the subject of the debate is not the validity of the list, but its notability. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The only difference between the two cases that Romanian politics and "science" support this absurd theory, while Hungarian historiography has no need for self-justification and nation-building. Nevertheless I do not dispute the validity of Daco-Romanian continuity article. However this article is based on a dubious source and "Notes" section clearly indicates that these words are not of Dacian origin. On this basis, Arpad and Ur are also words of Hungarian origin. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think all nations' historiography serves national-building purposes, and there are significant Hungarian historians who played or play this role. I could mention (and I have several times mentined) stupid theories proposed by Hungarian academics as well: all scholars are human beings and they often make mistakes. Moreover, the debate is not about the role of certain theories in the national-building process, but the notability and reliability of the list. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again I must urge you to restrain this type of inflammatory rhetoric. No one has mentioned politicians, I'm not aware of politicians who have opined about this topic, and in any case no one has proposed citing political declarations.
 * On the other hand, yes, your contempt notwithstanding, Constantin Frâncu is a scientist - a linguist, in fact. So is Maria Cvasnîi Cătănescu. And Gheorghe Guler. And Mihai Bărbulescu - indeed, a member of the Romanian Academy.
 * Or what about this text, published in Germany by Harrassowitz Verlag? Or this one, from Walter de Gruyter, also in Germany? Have German academic publishers been fooled into publishing about a fraud?
 * The point of the list is not to validate a theory. The theory's notability (as opposed to its accuracy) is confirmed by its routine coverage in reliable texts, which means the article must be kept, per WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 01:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Biruitorul, as I mentioned above, the list of Hungarian words of Sumerian origin are also mentioned in reliable sources, because they refuse it.
 * Fakirbakir, the Earth is not flat, yet we do have the Flat Earth article. There is no flying spagetti monster, yet we do have the Flying Spaghetti Monster article. So no, it does not matter if the theory about the Dacian origin of those words is right or wrong. What matters is that the theory itself exists and that it is notable. — Adi  Japan  09:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't think that we need a list (an article) with all of the 160 Romanian words of possible Dacian origin. Maybe some interesting point should move to the Romanian language article. - Rovibroni (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By your logic, would you delete the hundred or so articles under Category:Lists of English words, particularly List of English words from indigenous languages of the Americas and Category:Lists of English words of Celtic origin? --Codrin.B (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Check template of the bottom of List of English words of Irish origin article. - Rovibroni (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Major loanword strata are entirely encyclopedic topics, even if the etymologies of individual words may not be. Words where the listed competing etymologies have been deemed more probable should perhaps be omitted, if reliable secondary sources assessing the question can be located. If this can be shown to be the case for the vast majority, perhaps a second shot at a deletion (or a merger into Eastern Romance substratum) could be considered, but the mere existence of competing proposals is an insufficient reason for deletion. Some cleanup may indeed be in order, e.g. some discussion on the Dacian loan originals (and if these are attested or reconstructed) would be a beneficial addition, but for the purposes of this discussion that's neither here not there. AFD is not for cleanup or POV issues. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Trɔpʏliʊm, can you imagine that all Romanian words would be listed in separate articles according to their (actual or proposed) origin? "List of Romanian words of Latin origin", "List of Romanian words of proto-Slavic origin", "List of Romanian words of Bulgarian origin", "List of Romanian words of Hungarian origin" ..... And should we create such lists of all words of all the languages of the world? Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a common practice to create such lists. There are 15 such lists for Spanish words: Category:Lists of Spanish words of foreign origin. Eurocentral (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) I think these list should not be subject of an article (2) even if we accept the idea, that such lists could be created, we should not create articles on words "of possible .... origin". Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole science of linguistics is based on possible word origins and etymologies, and they change, as the research evolves. What are you talking about?--Codrin.B (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree mostly with User:Rovibroni, but I also have to mention, that the article is not even in coherency with itself. Most of the words listed in the article has beside them in the "Notes - Alternative etymologies" section a denial, why aren't they in fact inherited from the dacian language. However, according to my opinion, keeping or deleting this article shouldn't be based on the question of nationality. As I see, this nomination for deletion have started to be an indirect war between the romanian and hungarian users. --Szabi237 (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Szabi237, you are wrong: please cheque the nationality involved in the above debate, this is not a debate among Hungarian and Romanian editors. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, your dear Szabi237 is not wrong. Look at the illegal WP:CANVASS-ing done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary. What have Romanian and Dacian words got to do with WP Hungary, if not an attempt to get Hungarian nationalists to vote here?!--Codrin.B (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Codrinb, also look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania. I know that in your world there are lots of chauvinistic, nationalistic, fasist, irredentist Hungarians in every corner who have been conspiring for secret dark purposes, but especially against the Daco-Romanian continuity theory. However, it is your own world, not ours. Would you please try to forget nationality in debates. I have several times made the same suggestion to Hungarian editors as well. In my world, referring to anybody's nationality in a negativ context is a most primitive and an extremely simple-minded approach. Borsoka (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the chronology of the edits. Norden1990 put the notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania one hour after Codrin.B reported the canvassing here, so it can be a consequence of it. However I am not outraged, because the most active Hungarian users already commented here. Peace! 86.126.35.222 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The whole action to delete this article seems an attempt to censor the work of few specialists; work started more than 100 years ago. The article is an important encyclopedic topic related to the Dacian language. If the article needs improvements, the deletion attempt is dubious. It is strange too that users without expertize on Dacian language propose and support this deletion. Cui bono? -- Saturnian (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole list with its counter theories is just an assumption and may be completely wrong. It is not properly sourced. Honestly, it is rather laughable. The only "reliable" source is Russu's study (Olteanu's work is self-published?), however his method is more than questionable (see its talkpage, you can read there an expert's opinion about Russu's study). Moreover we should not really use communist sources because they were unfortunately quite biased.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See the talk page of the article for details on the work and credentials of the authors you cheaply attempt to discredit, in-lieu of better arguments.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you deny that Romanian historiography was controlled by the Communist authorities? Fakirbakir (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We are talking about lingustics not historiography. And what are you here? A judge at the communism's trial? Do you think that between 1948-1989, the linguists and archaeologists who did research way before communism got installed, such as Russu, became some sort of retards who produced nothing but crap hence forth?! In books from that era, you have to filter the propaganda, but they contain a lot of valid science as well. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - there's a certain game I've seen played before, and it's discouraging to see it played yet again. It goes something like this:
 * Romanian historiography from before 1938 is not to be taken into account, because it's either "obsolete" or "romantic nationalist".
 * Same for the 1938-1944 period, because it's "fascist".
 * Same for the 1944-1989 period, because it's "communist".
 * Same for the 1990s, and, while we're at it, up to the present, because it's "nationalist".
 * Are there works we should ignore because of inherent unscientific biases? Absolutely. Especially in the period 1948-1965, when historiography really was subservient to the Party line. But to say that nothing from a certain period can be taken into account simply because of the nature of the regime is terribly short-sighted. Take this as a random example: yes, it's from 1975, but it also happens to be by Giurescu père et fils, two pre-eminent historians and members of the Romanian Academy (by merit, not by political criteria). So of course it's acceptable as a source, provided any blatant propaganda is filtered out.
 * Also. If the word "Dacia" is giving people such a conniption, there are alternatives available. List of possible substrate words in Romanian, for example. But that is a matter for the editing process, which is why this contentious AfD should close before more needless vitriol gets thrown around.
 * Finally. There has been some comparison with the Sumerian idea as linked to Hungarian. While that one is probably more fanciful than anything related to Dacia, I have absolutely no objection to an article on the Sumerian-Hungarian hypothesis, provided it's sourced from reliable material. In fact, I'd be quite interested in finding out more about this idea. So please, anyone who's interested, go ahead and start the article, complete with a word list. - Biruitorul Talk 14:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Biruitorul, I think you suggested a logical approach. I also agree with you that we should not blame on individual scholars that they had to live in a lunatic century. Borsoka (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. If the point of the article is "these things exists", then lets avoid Wikipedia is not a dictionary and just write an article about the continuity of these words with references to a list or lists of them. If these lists don't exist anywhere else, then OR and POV apply because the subject is not WP:Notable; and our mention of the subject should be moved to articles about the individual "notable academics".  D kriegls ( talk to me! ) 18:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll excuse you for not reading the wall of text above that carefully; book after book after book reproduces virtually the same list, so there is no question of original research.
 * No one is trying to create a dictionary here. This article simply records a list that has appeared in many works across well over a century. And I don't see 160 entries as being overly large; have you lately checked out List of English words of French origin (0-9) and (A-C), List of English words of French origin (D-I), List of English words of French origin (J-R) or List of English words of French origin (S-Z)? - Biruitorul Talk 20:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll return the kindness of your excuse by pointing out that although you properly addressed the "If" secondary objections of my delete vote, your cited objection to my core reason for casting a delete vote was specifically addressed as a non-supported objection to the WP policy I cited. Wikipedia is not a dictionary specifically states "dictionary entries and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length". As you point out "This article simply records a list"...with no context, no wiki-reference for the reader on why this is encyclopedia. That is the very spirit of Wikipedia is not a dictionary and should be avoided (the core reason for my Delete vote).
 * As I suggested, an article placing this subject in context is more appropriate than a list. If there were significant academic coverage of the subject, a break away list might be warranted. But I don't even see how this topic can alone warrant its won article given that only a single academic notable enough for a Wikipedia article is credited to the topic. Whereas your Other stuff exists argument is supported with articles putting the French to English list in context (i.e., Latin influence in English) and a robust academic literature from multiple authors supports the findings. At best I think the list we are debating should be a section on Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu's biography article. --  D kriegls ( talk to me! ) 23:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Why do we need two articles about the same subject???: List of reconstructed Dacian words Fakirbakir (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a similar subject, but not the same. This one contains Romanians words, while the other one is formed of allegged Dacian words. 79.117.188.152 (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think I miss the point. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * One is a list of words in Romanian, a modern language with some 25 million speakers and which has been continuously written down for some five centuries. One is a list of words thought to have been used by the Dacians, who spoke a language that has been dead for close to 2000 years and which does not survive in written form. The topics are discrete. - Biruitorul Talk 20:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I do not have any problem with the concept and the list, as long as it reflects the mainstream view of linguists. However, it seems that for most of the listed words the majority of modern scholars accept another theories (Latin, Albanian, Slavic, Greek, etc., origin). I do not see too much point of keeping lists only supported by fringe theories, unless they have relevance from some other (e.g., historical, cultural) point of view. On the other hand, I am not a linguist, so if someone can demonstrate with a range of modern linguistic sources that it is indeed the mainstream view that these words are of Dacian origin or that this list has historical importance, then the article could stay (but should be renamed in the latter case). All the best, K &oelig;rte F a { ταλκ }  20:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If your major problem is with the title, I have stated above that I have no objection to renaming something like List of possible substrate words in Romanian. If that is the case, keep but rename would be a better option.
 * Also, see this text, published in Germany by Harrassowitz Verlag, and this one, from Walter de Gruyter, another German academic publisher. Even if they do not say outright that the words are of possible Dacian origin, the fact is that we have impeccable sources from outside Romania indicating the importance of this list of words. There are substrate words in Romanian, and this is acknowledged by most texts on the language, regardless of how exactly they term the phenomenon. How we title the list and how we present it are matters for the editing process, but its very notability is not in doubt, nor is it purely studied by the fringe. - Biruitorul Talk 20:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is quite interesting to read statements like this from a linguistic site: "It is noteworthy that Rumanian does not contain words of Dacian origin, while it shares some old-Balkan and non-Latin terms with Albanian." (and it is not even a Hungarian site :-))Fakirbakir (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am still thinking that we have two articles about the same subject. "List of reconstructed Dacian words" has its own section about this matter:List_of_reconstructed_Dacian_wordsFakirbakir (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename to something indicating that these words are not actually of Dacian origin. The theory is notable and well-referenced, but since it's not actually true, we shouldn't imply its validity in the title. Matchups 02:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact no sample of Dacian language survived, so the theory can't ascertained as being true or false 79.117.179.57 (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But what if the listed words are Illyrian? The title is quite comfy for someone who supports only "Dacian" origin. It is clearly biased.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If this theory has important academic support, of course that a renaming could be taken into consideration 86.126.33.49 (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename, perhaps to Dacian substrate theory - The page can probably be improved to be more of an article. I'm not sure it should have a list format. -PC-XT+ 02:33, 19 November 2013 (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.