Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadesh list of Slavic languages


 * 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  05:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Swadesh list of Slavic languages

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The topic and 98% of the contents of this article belongs at Wiktionary, and already exists there at wikt:Appendix:Swadesh lists for Slavic languages. At the talk page of the article is explained what the purpose of the article creator was, and why he or she believes that for that reason, this should remain on Wikipedia. However, the first point of the three arguments is covered by Wiktionary, and the second and third point are not the "Swadesh list" etcetera; but a discussion of "the changes that underwent the languages or branches from Common Slavonic to the modern day languages." This may be a good topic for an example, there certainly are plenty of sources for this topic, but it should not be placed at this article but somewhere else, e.g. at Slavic languages or at Proto-Slavic. So I propse to either delete this article (because the vast majority of it already exists at another project, and the small remainder is not an explanation, an encyclopedic treatment, of the topic of the article, i.e. the Swadesh list, but uses the Swadesh list to discuss another topic), or to change it into a redirect to the Wiktionary appendix. Fram (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 14:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 14:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment See WP:Articles for deletion/Swadesh lists for why Swadesh lists, by themselves, are not encyclopedic. My reasoning for creating the article currently under consideration was to demonstrate how Swadesh lists could be presented alongside article prose to be encyclopedic.  I'll leave it up to others to determine if this is still a fair pursuit 6 years later.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  20:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as this article contains sourced, encyclopedic information above and beyond the bare Swadesh list, and that information would be inappropriate at Wiktionary. Angr (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it contain any "sourced, encyclopedic information" about this Swadesh list though? Fram (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete/redirect Most of it belongs in Wiktionary, and substantially more detailed info about the history of Proto-Slavic can be found in the article Proto-Slavic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Angr. This is another type of article, like lists of flags and popular culture articles, that Wikipedia does especially well compared to traditonal print encyclopedia.  It's not original research - Morris Swadesh has done it for us, and what the creator has done here is a synopsis.  It is sourced, and can be sourced even better.  I looked at the appendix in Wikipedia, and found it has too much information.  This is "the right height", as Governor Romney would say. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable academic material. Even the nom agrees it does not all belong in Wiktionary.  DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 5 June 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.