Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manglish vocabulary


 * 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   merge to Manglish. as a selective merge. Not all content from this article should be merged to Manglish, but some of the content could enhance the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Manglish vocabulary

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A language dictionary is inappropriate for Wikipedia, as per WP:NOT. I can't find any precedent for an unprescriptive list of words. There is already a general article on Manglish, which should be sufficient. Sionk (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - My concern is that this is unsourced. I'd advise following precedent employed previously for glossaries of similar dialects, whatever that may be. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. List is in any case unsourced so this looks like WP:OR. Without the list it'd just be a dictionary definition of the term itself. No choice but delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as English, but not quite and The prodigal tongue: dispatches from the future of English. There seems to be overlap between this article and other articles such as Malaysian English and Manglish and it might be best to merge them all together.  Deletion would not be helpful in this. Warden (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I can certainly agree that 2 or 1 instead of 3 barely-cited articles on almost-but-not-quite the same thing would be an improvement. The two Manglish ones are both seriously crufty - in the case of the list, decrufting would mean leaving not a lot; in the case of the non-list article, it would be a deal lighter. I'm honestly not sure why deleting the one and editing the other down wouldn't be better, but if you want to call it a merge that should give much the same result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. Matchups 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Smerge - the main article would be somewhat improved by additional examples. But this is just not what an encylopedia is about. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 22 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.