Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dacian words
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Scott eiπ 23:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
List of Dacian words[edit]
Hmm... Well I fear that there will be a lot of opposition, as this is a frequently edited article, but it had to be said sometime: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is just a list of words and their translations into English. In fact, I think it's even a bad title, as it's really like, as RickK suggested, a "List of possible Dacian cognates to words in the Romanian language" or something like that. In any case, the editors work need not be lost, they should just spend their time transwikiing the article to wiktionary, so that it can be deleted --Dmcdevit 07:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Note, this article has become a redirect following a page move. I suggest that we delete the pointless redirect (no one will be looking for "list of ...") but keep the new encyclopedic article at Romanian substratum words which excludes the list. --Dmcdevit 08:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Shorten the list, expand the text. It cannot be incorporated in the Dacian language article, because we can't just say 100% that all the words are Dacian. This article deals with words of substratum and probable substratum words in the Romanian language, so it is an article on its own. The only problem is the long list, which can be shortened. There is an amount of text, and the text can be expanded easily, since many points aren't covered. This will lead to a name change, with the Talk Page also being kept & moved to the new name. Decius 07:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As an example of what I propose, I've removed the entire list. The list is not that important, but the article is, and it does not require a list. Decius 07:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that move was a bit uncalled for. Did you read the vfd notice? "Please do not blank, merge, or move this article" (my emphasis). Anyway, you are making a mistake about deleting that list, unless that means you are going to put it into Wiktionary. It's a great resource, just not encyclopedic. Otherwise I agree with the renaming, but there's no need for a redirect to that nonsearchable name, and the six links can be fixed. --Dmcdevit 07:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We have many articles on subtopics only reachable through links in other articles, as nobody would search for that particular title. I don't think that is a problem, as these are articles people would only be expected to continue to after reading the main articles. Anyway the VfD notice should be reinserted and the link fixed, unless Dmcdevit decides to withdraw the nomination. Uppland 07:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have said there's no need for a redirect from that useless ("list of ...") name. Current location is good. Which is why I don't know what to do with the tag, because my nomination is only for the old location which should be deleted now, and not the new one. --Dmcdevit 08:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We have many articles on subtopics only reachable through links in other articles, as nobody would search for that particular title. I don't think that is a problem, as these are articles people would only be expected to continue to after reading the main articles. Anyway the VfD notice should be reinserted and the link fixed, unless Dmcdevit decides to withdraw the nomination. Uppland 07:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that move was a bit uncalled for. Did you read the vfd notice? "Please do not blank, merge, or move this article" (my emphasis). Anyway, you are making a mistake about deleting that list, unless that means you are going to put it into Wiktionary. It's a great resource, just not encyclopedic. Otherwise I agree with the renaming, but there's no need for a redirect to that nonsearchable name, and the six links can be fixed. --Dmcdevit 07:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a problem. The new article is a Wikipedia article relating to the Romanian language. The Wiktionary version was already created by Uncle G some months ago. He listed all the words that were on the list onto Wiktionary. I'll find the link. Decius 07:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... I see it now. I'll admit I had searched Wiktionary to see if these articles were there before nominating, but was looking for Dacian words, when they are listed only as Romanian words with Dacian derivations.
- Keep present article at Romanian substratum words: the subject as such is encyclopedic. I also don't see any problem with a short, annotated list of sample words, as long as the list doesn't dominate the article. Uppland 07:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep whats Dacian for "keep"? Klonimus 19:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I found the Wiktionary list compiled with care by Uncle G: [1]. Decius 08:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.