Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Thai language idioms


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 17:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Thai language idioms

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a language manual, and it is doubtful whether a list of expressions in a language has a place here. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. A description of Thai idioms, including summaries of widely accepted scholarly treatments, would probably make a useful encyclopedia entry. In its current state, however, this article is an indiscriminate list of idioms and translations. That seems to run afoul of WP:NOTDIC and the criteria for stand-alone lists. I guess this adds up to a weak delete argument, although I do think the topic (under the name "Thai language idioms" rather than "List of...") is worthwhile. Cnilep (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If lists of idioms in general are not to be considered to have a place here, as suggested by the nominator, then wouldn't a better way to test the waters to be to nominate "List of English language idioms" for deletion? Then there would be a better chance for editors of English Wikipedia to judge whether this type of content attracts significant coverage in independent reliable sources, because potential sources would mostly be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is missing the point, because the reasons I gave for deletion have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what basis do you have for your bold assertion that it is doubtful whether a list of expressions in a language has a place here, if it's not to be decided in the normal way, by considering coverage in reliable sources? And if you do have a basis for it then why pick on Thai idioms rather than English ones? It would be much easier to make such a general case by considering an article that readers of English Wikipedia will be able to evaluate more easily, whatever form that evaluation might take. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Considering coverage in reliable sources" is "the normal way" of deciding whether an article should be deleted for failing to satisfy the notability guidelines, but that is not the issue here, so reliable sources are irrelevant. Whether a topic has substantial coverage in reliable sources is only one of the issues which decides whether we have an article on the topic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it is a policy that we don't have articles which do nothing but give the meaning of a word or expression, no matter how many reliable sources there are. It is not clear to me that simply including several words or expressions in one article, rather than giving each one a separate article, makes any difference to the "not a dictionary" principal. As for "why pick on Thai idioms rather than English ones", I didn't "pick on" anything: I happened to see this article, and didn't happen to see the one on English idioms, that's all. AS for being able to evaluate the article more easily, I don't see that what language is involved makes any difference to how easy it is to decide whether or not the policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary applies to an article containing nothing but a list of expressions and definitions of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Shouldn't there be an option for transwiki-ing to Wiktionary? --101.108.239.72 (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is; see WP:ATD-TRANS. And if you think that is the best outcome here (or for any other AfD) you can certainly argue for it (but be aware that Wiktionary has its own criteria for inclusion). Cnilep (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, as currently written; this is synthesis of a single source. It needs to be transwikied, incubated, or improved. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Synthesis of a single source" is an obviously self-contradictory statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * keep This list is interesting to read and certainly helpful in understanding Thai popular language and culture. Hmains (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Either transwiki to Wiktionary, if they don't have anything like this already, or just delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Every time I come back to this AfD, I find myself caught up reading this list and I consider that to be a pretty good (subjective) indicator of encyclopedic value. We do have several other lists of idioms (e.g., List of English language idioms, List of 19th-century English language idioms, etc) that are within the scope of the nominator's rationale, so we should rightly attach them to this discussion for a group decision. I'd lean towards keeping them since lists of idioms can at very least play an important role in navigating otherwise disparate social articles across our project (i.e., Achilles' heel, black sheep, break a leg, sacred cow), but if they absolutely must go, then it is important that their content be transwikied and not lost. —  C M B J   07:01, 14 October 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.