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. John254 01:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of American and British words[edit]

(View log)

• List of British words not widely used in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (3 previous AfDs)
• List of American words not widely used in Great Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (1 previous AfD)
• List of words having different meanings in British and American English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (1 previous AfD)

I will quote this comment from an earlier AfD:

“

From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not...[l]ists of such definitions...usage guide[s] or slang and idiom guide[s]". This is a list of dictionary defintions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Definitions of words go in Wiktionary, encyclopaedia articles go in Wikipedia. [These are] also... unmaintainable list[s] with OR problems.

”

These articles are indeed unmaintainable (typical size: 160+ KB) and a magnet for original research. This is in direct contrast to the articles American and British English spelling differences and American and British English pronunciation differences, which are perfectly encyclop[a]edic in nature. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article. Having lived in both Britain and the USA I find it generally accurate and interesting. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without meaning to appear as hovering over this AfD (I just noticed your edit on my watchlist), "interesting" isn't a valid AfD keep reason. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed if it is of interest to only one person, but not if it is of interest to many persons, as is clear from the text below. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

No, that's still not the case. The people below make other points beside "it's interesting". — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not convinced that the article fails the points mentioned. It should either be kept or failing that, moved to wikitionary via the transwiki process. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 01:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is not in contravention of WP:NOT. DICT1 says: "Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well." This article does. DICT2 says: "Descriptive articles about languages, dialects or types of slang are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not." This is (but could be better) descriptive and certainly not prescriptive. Merge, if you like. Split, if you like. Clean-up, please, but it does not meet deletion criteria. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm no cunning linguist (had to be said), and could give a host of non-arguments for keeping it (i like it, it is useful, etc), but in short, I find it quite encyclopedic. That is what I would want in an encyclopedia, particularly the English Wikipedia. DoubleBlue is right on this one, as this isn't about a simple list of words being defined, but rather the differences in Englishes. ;) Oh, and it does need more sources, granted, but that is never a reason to delete. Pharmboy (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, provides useful information about differences in varieties of English, definitely encyclopedic. ♠PMC♠ 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per PMC. I think this content is perfectly encyclopedic. matt91486 (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pharmboy and Doubleblue. The articles could be merged. They could also be improved via normal editing, including addition of references to substantiate the differences between the versions of English. There are numerous print sources which discuss the variation in the language, so there is a basis for improving the referencing. The editorial process can delete any O.R. Variation in language use in different English speaking countries has been the subject of sybstantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, and thus satisfies WP:N. Edison (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep all. The nominator does have a point, and although WP:INTERESTING is not a good argument, and these articles tend to attract original research, they seem like valid encyclopedic lists. I can't give you a better reason than that though sadly.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These are not lists of definitions; the first 2 are a list of words (with definitions included), and the 3rd one is a list of differences. WP:LISTS states lists serve 1 of 3 purposes: information, navigation or development. These lists clearly meet the "information" criteria. Therefore, I disagree with the nominator's rationale. Edison properly addresses any WP:OR concerns. However, the length is becoming cumbersome; suggest breaking up either by categories (transportation, food, etc.) or A-E, F-J, etc.--12 Noon ^2¢ 02:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is starting to snow.--12 Noon ^2¢ 02:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Pharmboy and Doubleblue. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 07:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, they attract original research (which generally gets deleted), but they do not inherently consist of original research. Snalwibma (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seconding Snalwibma's comment. Joriki (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - To second the thoughts of many above me, as well as being British in America this is highly useful for my more uncommon terminology that garners curious looks from colleagues. Incidentally, if Wikitionary is technically the correct place for this, I couldn't find it there nor did it seem immediately appropriate. Bclaydon (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Jimgawn (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why? Please see wp:NOREASON to understand why I am asking. wp:DEMOCRACY is another good read. Pharmboy (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because. Because it's documentation of variation of usage and meaning within a major world language and the collection of societies that use that language.Jimgawn (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I agree, I just know a blank 'keep' will be ignored. Pharmboy (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a great list. Perhaps it is time to modify the WP:NOT guidelines. If OR is really a problem, tag the worst offenders with ((cn)).--Knulclunk (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep So it's not perfect. I liked it and learned a lot.67.161.166.20 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I refer to this list regularly, and removing it would be detrimental to Wikipedia. RFerreira (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per existing comments, not to mention how much I've contributed especially to List of words having different meanings in British and American English. Besides, contrary to the nominator's comment, these articles are distinct in purpose from dictionary entries. -- Smjg (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep but I will say it is a bit big and horrible, maybe it should be split into smaller articles? (i.e. words with differences a-g, h-p, etc...) --Him and a dog 21:07, 6 January 2008 (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.