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 delete. While many good points have been raised, the question of verifiability has been brought up several times, in this discussion and previously, and has not been addressed. Some editors have expressed an interest in doing a transwiki; should anyone wish a temporary history restore or userfication for this purpose, please let me know and I will happily do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the list has been transwikied to Wikibooks as Common_phrases_in_various_languages]. It needs a lot of work to be transformed into a proper book. - Taxman ^Talk 22:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of common phrases in various languages[edit]

List of common phrases in various languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page is basically a guide on how to go to the bathroom in a (totally arbitrary) number of languages. According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a usage guide, an idiom guide, or a travel guide. The article is completely unsourced, unverified, and OR-prone; the title too is awkward. Please don't say "Keep: it's useful," because it's useless---at least for encyclopedic purposes. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 22:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Extreme end of cruft. --Blueboy96 22:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Besides, I know from bitter experience that when you're in Italy and suffering from Mussolini's Revenge, what you want is the gabinetto, not the bagno (which is where you go to take a bath). Deor 23:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and clean-up. This page used to be one of the better pages on Wikipedia until the nominator from the second nomination, following a no-consensus vote, removed a lot of the phrases, rendering it into its current state. I do believe it's encyclopedic, serving two purposes, for linguistic comparison and also how particular phrases are said in other languages. I should point out that Encarta has done something similar for their languages article. The common phrases therein are, complete with audio for over 2 or 3 dozen languages, are: Greeting, Yes, No, Thank you, Good bye, numbers, proverbs, and the autonym for the languages. Yes, it was useful, but it also served an encyclopedic purpose, to show other languages expressed certain concepts. I argue that it's not a dictionary because it isn't comprehensive. Neither is it a travel/idiom/usage guide for that very purpose (there are no phrases asking where the nearest embassy is!) but I do agree that the "Where is the bathroom" phrase is touristy and should be replaced. --Chris S. 00:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft. Useight 00:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Useight and impossibility to verify. Transliterations should be expressed in IPA instead of the editor's own personal transliteration system. --Nonstopdrivel 00:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could it be impossible to verify when all you have to do is pick up a textbook or dictionary (which has pronunciation information) in a particular language? --Chris S. 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a textbook or dictionary of Arapaho? —Angr 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could get Wayne C'Hair dictionary for $10 from Wind River Tribal College in Wyoming. :-D Worldcat.Org said it was published this year. ;-) --Chris S.
    • Of course you can pick up a dictionary, but see WP:NOT#DICT. This project is hopeless.--Nonstopdrivel 01:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not an encyclopedia article, or even an encyclopedic list. —Angr 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and disperse per WP:NOT and because it's hard to see how such a sprawling list could be kept to encyclopedic standards as Chris S. hopes. See the sprawling Dutch listing, for instance. A cleanup won't fix it (and keep it fixed). Inconsistent transliteration is a concern (as at Finnish and its neighbors), and some information may be missing crucial context, even though some sections try to indicate this (e.g., Tagalog). A lot of work went into this, but it doesn't belong here. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks as suggested below. That seems the ideal place for it, so I change my vote. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - mostly cruft, not useful. DHN 01:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. •97198 talk 03:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki?  --Lambiam^Talk 05:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To where? This isn't the sort of thing Wiktionary likes either. —Angr 15:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If people delete it here, it will probably go to Wikiversity. A.Z. 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Magioladitis 07:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Contrary to the general opinion I see a value here: writing the phrase "mluvite anglicky" (Do you speak English in Czech language) into the searchbox returned this page. This could be useful when looking what some unknown phrase means or as a start when looking for a detailed phrasebooks (this kind of external links is unfortunately missing now). The verification shouldn't be a real problem (the Czech section is correct, btw), the transliteration could be fixed and sound files will get added over time. The allowed set of phrases could be fixed and easily enforced. Pavel Vozenilek 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with Chris S. --Node 05:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unmaintainable, arbirtrary & directionless. Eusebeus 15:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unmaintainable, arguably of low quality, with no hope of completion or comprehensive correctness. --Kjoonlee 15:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For linguistic comparison. The page can improve a lot. It's all verifiable. A.Z. 17:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Clean-Up, I agree with Chris S, above, here. It used to be a rather good page to which I liked to contribute once in a while, until the last AfD, when everything was messed up (not on purpose, but the outcome is terrible now). I'd suggest to keep the page, to revise it thoroughly and use a fixed set of phrases — the ones used by Encarta minus the proverbs (because that would be too arbitrary and has a better place in WikiQuotes) minus the numbers (because there already is an article on that). It should be debated on the issue of gender and formality/politeness in the phrases used and... things like that. All managable, although a big pile of work (I'd readily contribute to that). However, I am fairly sure that it would not be suitable for 'linguistic comparison', otherwise we'd need in-line glossings and cross-linguistical references. — N-true 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could have in-line glossings and cross-linguistical references, eventually. I don't think anyone should be in a hurry to make the best article possible right now, and I don't think an article should be deleted just because it's not great. Just let it be, so people can contribute if they wish and improve it. I don't mind if it takes five or ten years. By the way, things such as "unsourced" and "title is awkward", are not good reasons to delete any article, as articles can be improved. If we just delete everything that is not complete, there will be no article here. Check the logo: it means that Wikipedia is always under construction. The title can be changed and references can be added, and there's no deadline at all. A.Z. 18:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't deny that this page could be great eventually. I just don't think that Wikipedia is the place for it, certainly not in this form. Perhaps an infobox along these lines could be created for languages, so the information is given in a fuller context, although it should be flexible enough to allow for explanations of translated phrases as necessary. On this page, however, any editor can come along and spend a moment in the Swahili section to add Hakuna matata, or to comment that it may take Swahili speakers five minutes just to get past saying "hello." (I just fact-flagged the latter statement.) Were either of these things done at Swahili language, it is somewhat more likely that the claim would be quickly confirmed or reverted, and Hakuna matata, if it appeared, would be presented in a manner less likely to conjure up a Disney movie. Let's present this information with authority, or not at all. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I like the concept. Don't know if there's Wikipedia policy about global view, don't really care, but I've never seen a phrase book in 100+ languages. Back in the days when this thing was in "books", you might have five or 20 languages. I admire the effort. Disregard the sarcastic comments of others, save this before the deletion takes place; keep working on it, improve it, bring it back. Mandsford 02:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikibooks, Wiktionary, or Wikiversity, whichever is most appropriate. The material seems useful, and I'd hate to see the effort go to waste, even though I think it's not quite appropriate for Wikipedia. --Kyoko 07:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In addition to the aforementioned arguments, notably those of Chris S., Pavel Vozenilek, and N-true, the kleptomaniacal nature of the English language leads to many of these phrases being in general use among Anglophones - Kanpai, for example. Robin Z 11:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: Despite apparent vandalism by those who wish to delete it, the article is still useful and has the potential to be even more useful. I echo the above comments that an improper title or complaints about the current state are arguments to change the title or improve the content, not arguments for deletion. And, if Encarta finds such material to be encyclopedic, then why don't we ? I fail to see how the existence of this article harms Wikipedia. StuRat 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: How can we be asked to 'Please don't say "Keep: it's useful," ' ?? It is useful.--Jondel 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:USEFUL - Zeibura^(talk) 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikibooks (but fix the pro-nun-see-ay-shunz). This is basically a phrasebook, which doesn't belong here under WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOT#INFO (travel guides/instruction manuals), thus is not useful as an encyclopedia article, but it is useful as a book and it is verifiable. - Zeibura^(talk) 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - my hovercraft is full of eels. And wiki isn't a phrasebook. -- Whpq 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikibooks, Wiktionary, or Wikiversity. This is clearly a useful article; it's just not one suitable for an encyclopedia. —Psychonaut 23:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. Keep For linguistic comparison! To delete this would be a travesty, alot of man hours have gone into this. Stick with it!--JDnCoke 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EFFORT ain't no argument. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 14:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki Might be useful in Wiktionary. Impossible to maintain here and has no encyclopedic value. xC | ☎ 04:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Transwiki, presumably to Wikibooks. This is unencyclopedic as just a list and pretty much original research if anything else comes out of it. Wikipedia does not report on linguistic differences, it lets someone else do it and then reports on that. I see no policy-based arguments to keep. Ichibani _u^t_c 04:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet Wikipedia does contain many different lists. I do not see any special reason for this to be considered less encyclopedic than the other information around here. As for Wikibooks, this is not any book. Chortos‑2 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's basically a multilingual phrasebook in list form. This would be more at home at Wikibooks than here. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Chris S. This is a useful article. Dilawar (t) 17:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. Why would you allow sample phrases in articles on languages, but not a separate list of such phrases? The introduction should be rewritten responsibly (first of all delete that reference to tourists!) so that contributors should know what they are expected to strive for. A list of sentences, phrases and words should be selected, and then not changed too often. Eventually the article should allow an impression of the various languages and a comparison between them, in terms of vocabulary, writing system, spelling, pronunciation etc. The Lord's Prayer in different languages and the Swadesh lists do only a part of that. — AdiJapan ☎ 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lord's Prayer in different languages is justified by the notability of The Lord's Prayer and its history as a language comparison tool. What such argument can be made for all these arbitrary phrases? It smells of original research, and unless a reliable source can be produced indicating what phrases would be appropriate inclusions, it shouldn't exist. Ichibani _u^t_c 04:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But everything in Wikipedia is to some degree arbitrary --- the choice of words, the selection of pictures, the amount of information, etc., etc. --- without being considered original research. Moreover, we're talking about example phrases, not about comprehensive lists. As Chris Sundita said above, Encarta has done the same in their language articles; I'd say that qualifies as a reliable source. — AdiJapan ☎ 09:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chris S. and clean up. This is enough encyclopedic, at least according to the Wiktionary’s definition of the word. Even if making this serve as a table for linguistic comparisons and moving (which is what I am against), I can imagine only one possible place where this article could fit, which is the Wiktionary’s appendixes, similarly to the abovementioned Swadesh lists. Chortos‑2 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a fixed set of words and phrases to be given for each language should be defined, and it is also a good idea to sort the languages by language families. Chortos‑2 15:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to a more appropriate project. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 18:51, 21 June 2007 (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.