Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wasei-eigo


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

List of wasei-eigo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See the tags on the page regarding a possible move to Wiktionary.

I am also nominating, which, like this one, could be merged into this one and moved to Wiktionary. Furthermore, I would like to ask for a review of the remaining articles in the category Japanese vocabulary to see which of the others could also be moved as such.

&#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Transwiki please, I think it fits in Wiktionary:Category:Etymological appendices. I don't mind what happens to it on Wikipedia. Siuenti (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, or Wikipedians would rise up in open revolt as this "Gadget Geek" then nominated every article in this list: Lists of English words by country or language of origin. And that's just for starters. Christ on a stick, it's lucky I just happened to want to look up the loanword status of a few Japanese words. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  04:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your reasoning. You seem to suggest that User:Some Gadget Geek would be emboldened to nominate articles for deletion without any rationale. On its face, that seems rather like an ad hominem. Am I missing something? There is at least reference to rationale for this deletion, the "tags on the page". (That said, Some Gadget Geek, reference to Wikipedia policy would strengthen the nomination.)
 * For what it's worth, the couple of articles on Lists of English words by country or language of origin that I looked at appear to be stand-alone WP:GLOSSARIES within scope. I'm not convinced that List of wasei-eigo meets that bill, either in terms of styling or verifiability. I suppose one could argue to merge it to Wasei-eigo if reliable sources can be added. Since there are currently no sources, though, and there are obvious issues with WP:NOTDIC, I'm leaning toward dai-pinch, erm, delete. Cnilep (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * He has no rational as to why this article is different from the many other list of loanwords articles on Wikipedia. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles are to be judged on what they could be, not their present state. Lack of sources only applies if no sources are available. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we are saying essentially the same thing: use ('keep' per Abductive; 'merge' per Cnilep) the content if reliable sources can be added. I'm less optimistic, though, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Therefore sources would have to include encyclopedic information about the words as words, not simply definitions and etymologies. That information might exist, but so far I haven't seen it; thus I am 'leaning'. Cnilep (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2017 (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.