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. The issue of such articles is clearly something which needs more detailed discussion, and AfD is probably not the best place to do this. (And there's clearly no consensus to do anything anyway, and good arguments made on both sides). Black Kite (t) (c) 17:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Korean origin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which says that articles should be about things not words. A list of words selected by origin is really a mini-dictionary and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Borock (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles of this type exist for dozens of different languages, and litter WP like bait for cranks who bloat them up with non-existent words. The whole lot of them should go, per WP:NAD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: little evidence that many (almost any?) of these words have widespread English usage, making this list even more questionable than its cousins. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Should we have List of English words of French origin, or List of American-English words of British-English origin? Just because a list like this is short and such words are unusual, doesn't mean we should have an article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ we do have List of English words of French origin, well, what can I say? --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a similar list for jsut about any language under the sun. I'm for deleting the lot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As annoying as it may be for some, this is a very useful list for linguists which doesn't fit the current scope of wiktionary. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL. Perhaps those linguists can set up a website with lists of words from one language that originate in another? It's not something I'd expect to find in an encyclopaedia.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? WP already does this... Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 17:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole lot. Indiscriminate, unsourced, endless, etc. Neutrality^talk 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why delete instead of transwiki? - Talk:Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin, Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Lists of words MadCow257 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think these lists would be great on Wiktionary.Borock (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some already are. Do they need to be in both places?--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator does not articulate any policy-based reason for deletion. NOTDICTIONARY is about individual words, not groups of words. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I would guess the Nom has not noticed Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin. very encyclopedic info. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 17:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's wonderful info. I just think it belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Borock (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Dictionary deals strictly with the meanings of words, a encyclopedia deals with lists of crossover points between languages. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries also contain information on the origin and usage of words, not just their meanings. An encyclopedia should have articles on the history of languages and their interrelationships. But lists of words are the very essence of dictionaries. Borock (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists show the interrelationship between languages, plainly, succinctly, all in 1 place. Add as much prose as you like to the encyclopedia, but it would all be deleted from a dictionary, as irrelevent to the meaning of the words. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any decent dictionary will include details of each word's etymology, including which language it originated from and when. This article offers nothing different than that. Some of these articles are already transwikied to Wikitionary - that's where they belong.---Pontificalibus (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But even a most excellent dictionary will not show how many, what types, and groupings/areas of knowledge of loan words there are between any 2. Latin gives English many Legal terms... Arabic gives us a lot of foods and colours... German gives us a lot of science terms. Seperating it all, destroys the context of the crossover itself. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source saying "Korean gives us lots of X terms", or otherwise discussing the particular nature of Korean-origin English words and I'll agree that would be a reason to have an article on the subject English words of Korean origin, containing perhaps a link to a Wikitionary list.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, could be endless, indiscriminate etc... Also, Wikipedia isn't here to help out in the research field for students. True, it is helpful to some, but that is not the sole purpose. Things like this could just be googled if you really want an answer. There are entire sites devoted to the origin of words. The Undead Never Die (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin; our long-standing lists of such things habve liong been considered encyclopedic. The deletion after Lists of English words of Italian origin was a horrible precedent, and needs to be rectified. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should nominate WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary for deletion. Borock (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just bundle everything in the category Category:Lists_of_loanwords (as you seem to dislike many of them) and do them all at once, instead of 1 at a time, Vote-stacking the like minded from your last AFD to your next AFD Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like the lists of words. It's just that they belong in a dictionary. I also like dictionaries. Borock (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that the answer to my question, "What if you had lists of English words of Anglo-Saxon, French, Galic, Norse, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Native American, Chinese, Japanese origins, and so forth? Put them all together and what would you have?," is a dictionary. Borock (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what you are compleatly missing. Dictionaries dont have Lists of words! Encyclopedias have lists where 2 Notable topics intersect. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries are lists of words, and in these days of modern technology, you can easily sort lists of words in other ways than the traditional alphabetical order, such as by language of origin for example. Having "two notable topics" associated with a list of words doesn't make it encyclopaedic. Are we to have List of English words that are nouns, or List of English words with the Latin-derived prefix "pro"?--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ummm ... we do ...havent you noticed? We are an encyclopedia. List of collective nouns by subject A-H & List of Latin phrases (P) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - until there is a clear consensus change, which I have not seen here, the lists of words by origin does not violate either WP:LIST or WP:DICDEF. Such lists are so well-established that to deleted them with only a handful of "delete votes" would amount to changing policy by a tiny minority. Before this discussion is closed, we need many more Wikipedians' input, so please note that, closing admin. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with this point. It seems to me that this discussion is turning from talking about this Article, to talking about the Entire Category. IF that is the situation, then notices should be placed drawing in additional editors. IF that happens, I personally feel this AFD should also be re-examined. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is beyond what a simple dictionary would contain, thanks to the categorization. Francis Bond (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The categorisations are arbitrary and serve no purpose.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is pretty clearly a lexicography which emerging consensus seems to be defining as being outside the encyclopedia project. There is probably a place for this at some other Wiki, so it shouldn't be blown away without exploring those options — but to my mind this should be deleted here since Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phrased another way: this is not a list with a valid navigational function. Carrite (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.