Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil


 * 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

List of loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil

 * Delete per explicit wikipedia policy: What Wikipedia is not, items ...is not  "Lists of such definitions" and "A usage guide or slang and idiom guide". Mukadderat 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment This is no longer a List and it never was a A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. It is an article on Loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil.RaveenS 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide. Travislangley 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is this user, seem to follow Mukadderat around in deletion requests ?RaveenS 12:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is not about "slang and idioms".  I don't think the policy means what you think it means.  Take a look at the articles in Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin, for example, all of which are identical in scope and intent to this article.  By your interpretation of the policy, all forty-two of them should be deleted.  And as far as the prohibition against slang, idioms and usage go, does that mean that we should be deleting List of Chicano Caló words and expressions, List of Puerto Rican phrases, words and slangs, and, for that matter, about two-thirds of Category:Lists of phrases and Category:Linguistics lists? -- Arvind 22:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete . (vote changed after article changes) The above argument is for "keeping" moot. For example, List of English words of Etruscan origin is a regular list of wikipedia articles, i.e., words with encyclopedic content, not just a piece of dictionary. Also, Category:Lists of phrases contins encyclopedic articles, not dicdefs. `'mikka (t) 23:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe I'm just a little dense today, but could you please explain what makes articles such as List of borrowed words in Indonesian, List of Latin words with English derivatives, and List of common phrases in constructed languages amongst others, more encyclopaedic than the article under consideration here? This is not a rhetorical question, I would genuinely like to understand what you see the difference as being. -- Arvind 00:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary has grown beyond simple collection of translations and becomes more organized, "encyclopedish". See e.g., wikt:Category:Swadesh lists and take a look into Template talk:Swadesh lists. Here people are reasonable about moving a big number of lists where they belong. See also wikt:Wikisaurus:insane for other interesting developments in wikitionary. So IMO it is time to move most of such lists there. For example there was a move to convert artices like List of English words of Russian origin into wiktionary categories, like wikt:Category:Russian derivations. (And I only now noticed that this approach exactly fits the discussed Sri Lankan article.) `'mikka (t) 01:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then how do you justify delete lets work to move into wictitionary categories instead deleting content
 * I see your argument, but I think the sheer number of articles involved means that a centralised discussion is warranted, rather than an ad hoc article-by-article deletion debate, because the latter will lead to inconsistent decisions being taken in relation to different articles. I'll stick to voting keep for now, but without prejudice to deleting or transwikiing as part of a process that applies to all similar articles. -- Arvind 23:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I dont see this list of words being any different than any other list sof words. Those who are advocating it are seeing Wikipedia through a Eurocentric view point. If this is delete, there hundreds of other list of words that need to be deleted.RaveenS 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Why this is keep then ?
 * List_of_English_words_of_Portuguese_origin because it is a european language with world dominance compared to another european languge ? Then how about this Arabic_influence_on_the_Spanish_language.


 * Based on the discussion on this AFD nomination, I have modified this into an article dealing with Loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil. It is no longer a List of loan words in Sri Lankan TamilRaveenS


 * Keep Kongan


 * Keep It does appear that there are many lists of loan words in different languages. One question I do have is why this article is in the English and not the Tamil Wikipedia?  It doesn't really mean much to those not familiar with Tamil. Tyronen 18:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's move it then


 * You could move it to the Tamil WP, but it most certainly should be kept in the English Wikipedia as well because if anyone who doesn't know Tamil (like me) is doing any research into the language, it'll be impossible to read this article if it's only in Tamil. --snowolfd4 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - It's ridiculous to suggest that this page is a "List of such dictionary definitions" or a "A usage guide or slang and idiom guide". It's very clearly valid encyclopedic entry. And are any of you guys who suggested this for deletion also willing to suggest the page Lists of English words of international origin and every other page derived from it for deletion as well? I bet there are similar pages for most languages on the planet. You want to delete them too? Here's another one - List of Spanish words of French origin. Go ahead, nominate them all for deletion. It's just beyond comprehension for me really. I'm not going to bother to say anything else. --snowolfd4 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't read carefully. It was already suggested earlier, please search for the text "wikt:Category:Russian derivations" higher on this vote page. `'mikka (t) 22:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep because as long as lists like List_of_English_words_of_Arabic_origin are acceptable, I don't see a reason to delete the one in discussion. The list even has some introductory words which embed it. This isn't a "slang or idiom guide" but an enlightening overview over historic processes concerning the language. (For the same reason: Don't move it.) Krankman 22:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems a useful topic. Ruchiraw 00:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This is content from Sri Lanka that is just begining to mushroom, may be move to wictionary but not delete. May be nominators can get thet gloves on and work to move it than to simply delete hard work of others. Better suggestion would have been to develop a template to move such things to wictionary. I think nominating this for deletin is totally unfair and wrong Huracane 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep for now until there is a reasonable plan to transwiki all such lists, per Arvind --Samuel Wantman 23:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is no longer a list, it Loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil. Thanks RaveenS


 * STRONG KEEP - To uphold What Wikipedia is not.--<< big personal attack removed. Please discuss articles, not editors. `'mikka (t) 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC) >> List Expert 13:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * List Expert, even though Mikka removed your "personal attack", I have to agree with you that AfDs by Mukadderat must obviously be viewed with special caution. (By the way, Mikka, in my opinion a user's AfD policy may at times be well relevant for the ensuing discussion!) Krankman 17:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is just disgusting. The nomination is done with a legitimate reason, citing immediately applicable policy. While I agree that policies are not cast in stone and may be overridden in particular cases with solid arguments (or by brute force), but your wikilawyering against Mukadderat   are not warranted by his edits.  Yes, he nominated several word lists. No he did not nominate all word lists. So what? `'mikka (t) 19:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unverifiable. Violates WP:NOT. -Will Beback 17:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you say the information is unverifiable? There are a) dictionaries, b) scientific treatises on the topic and c) tons of books on borrowing processes in general.
 * Can you please state in which point(s) exactly this article violates WP:NOT. Do you mean this one? I don't think it applies at all because the article is neither a guide nor a list of definitions. And it can and will be expanded into an even more informative article if you give us the time.
 * Again, if articles like this one are not desired in WP, more exact rules for what constitutes a relevant article need to be defined. No offence! Cheers, Krankman 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Except for a couple of websites, focused mostly on Portugese, I don't see the references that Krankman mentions. What is the purpose, in an English-language encyclopedia, of this article? As for WP:NOT, this is a list of words. -Will Beback 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course I can't cite any titles at this moment, but there are papers on the subject. The purpose is to collect knowledge about as many things as possible, I suppose, isn't it? As I said, it's not supposed to be a list of words, but to evolve into something more meaningful if you give it time to grow. Krankman 22:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * An "article like that" would be I see a possible confusion here. The nominated article was List of loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil. After that someone moved it to "Loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil", with less worrying title and expanded it to make it more encyclopedic. Believing that not the page is heading into an encyclopedic direction, I am inclined to change my vote now:
 * Keep and expand with encyclopedic content. `'mikka (t) 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For linguistically-defined lists of words we have wiktionary, which may have category wiktionary:Category:Loan words and subcategories thereof. `'mikka (t) 19:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Announcement: I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to discuss the fate of slang glossaries (such as this one) and to discuss whether or not the policy should be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia.  They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions like this one, they seem to be here to stay.  So shouldn't the policy be updated?  It would sure save a lot of time and effort wasted on fruitless AfDs.  You are welcome to join the discussion.  --List Expert 09:16, 4 August 2006 (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.