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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of common phrases in various languages[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place for instruction manuals, nor user and travel guides. The article states "This list is intended to serve as a comprehensive basic introduction to those languages", indicating that it is contrary to such policies. The information in this article can be added to and looked up by phrase at Wiktionary and by language at Wikitravel (I know we can’t transwiki to wikitravel, but some of the information is already there). Another possibility is Wikibooks. As it stands, there are no cited sources, making this page a mix of unverified material and/or original research. In addition, the scope of the article is so large as to be virtually indiscriminate. The article is nearly 160kb long and there is nothing about its scope that would limit it from growing. There is the possibility of splitting the article into subpages, but the above concerns overshadow such a solution. AEuSoes1 02:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with some reluctance. Clearly a lot of work has been put into this, but I agree that it is in no way within the scope of Wikipedia. This is probably all already available on Wiktionary, but if not transwikiing would definitely be a good course of action. -Elmer Clark 04:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is this really the second nomination? I can't find the first - it's not linked from the article's talk page, and it's not at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common phrases in various languages. I'd be interested to see under what justifications it survived an AfD in the past. -Elmer Clark 04:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't even notice that. Apparantly the article was called Common phrases in various languages at the last nomination. AEuSoes1 05:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, the only argument for keeping offered other than "gee it's already so long, it sure would be a shame..." or "I think it's neat" is that is has some value in the study of linguistics, which I consider a dubious claim at best, and I think it was well responded to. People need to realize that Wikipedia is not a repository for "interesting stuff" - how interesting something is is definitely not a criterion for inclusion. Sticking with my delete vote on this one. -Elmer Clark 05:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It really would be a shame to delete such a useful guide. Think of how much money it would cost someone to get this information in a reliable manner without this wikipedia article? Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article, so it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Transwikiing to Wikibooks or Wiktionary (or transferring to Wikitravel) would be feasible only if the information were verifiable. As it is, I've found some mistakes in languages I know, so who knows what other mistakes there might be? Better not to propagate misinformation. —The preceding signed comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 07:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I know this is on Wiktionary already, because some of my edits from the Spanish part of the page are there. Danny Lilithborne 08:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it's supi-dupi — Jared Preston 10:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm new to Wikipedia, and not sure I understand all nuances; but similar sort of material might have been found in an old-fashion 'dead tree' encyclopaedia. The old encyclopedists were not against including articles you could learn from; and I think the phrases main function is to illustrate language similarities and differences. JoergenB 12:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion to group members of particular language families together in tables (thereby showing the similarities with greater ease) was made in October 2005 but no one was willing to make the appropriate changes. Showing phonological similarities between languages is best done with individual words and showing syntactic or morphological similarities is best with phrases that aren't necessarily "common." The scope of hypothetical nameless "old-fashioned" encyclopaedias is not really relevant unless one wishes to change Wikipedia's consensus-forged policies.AEuSoes1 02:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that organising by 'language groups' is superior for displaying the similarities and differences. (There is some controversy about grouping, and indeed about the whole classical tree model for language relations; but (naively??) I don't expect much controversy in this case.) I am quite willing to undertake a reorganisation along these lines myself. However, I fear I do not understand all of your policies (even if I've read some recommended guidelines and have browsed some talk sides and histories, trying to understand 'what really goes on'). Is it OK and normal to do a drastic re-organisation of a page, while a discussion on its deletion goes on? Will this influence the voting process in some way? I'm not so happy about the idea of doing the work to-day and finding out that it's all been deleted to-morrow, without letting people viewing the result and possibly reconsidering their votes.

I also would like to know if there is some simple way to make a manual index of a page (apart from the automatic one). If I reorganise by language branch, I think it would be useful to complement this with an alphabetic index. JoergenB 12:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you wait until the discussion is closed. If it's deleted then create something like comparitive syntax of language family members or something like that. AEuSoes1 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or one could add this kind information to any of the articles on language families. That's where I would look for this kind of information.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia, she's a store of information, but she ain't a how to guide. - is Wikisource one of the inelidgible for transwiki-ing places? WilyD 13:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I couldn't have said it any better.--Isotope23 13:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since there is no encyclopaedic topic "common phrases in various languages". Transwiki if we can find a righteous home for it, in recognition of the effort which has clearly gone into it. Just zis Guy you know? 13:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: There's so much information in this page, it shouldn't be wasted, and in my opinion it is relevant, even if it's only marginally encyclopaedical. — N-true 14:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This is a highly informative page on a noteworthy subject. Quite useful for comparative purposes as well. Hardly an instruction manual or travel guide, or even an adequate phrase book. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The information is indeed useful for tourists and backpackers but not in the least encyclopedic. It belongs in other wikiprojects and it can be moved gradually over a period of time. It's also a perfect opportunity to make it better known to our contributors that Wikipedia is not the sole repository for all information on the internet. / Peter ^Isotalo 18:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wherein would that disruption lie? The enforcement of WP:NOT or the bonus argument of diverting misguided attention to other equally valid and relevant wikiprojects? / Peter ^Isotalo 09:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Enforcement", in a word, is what's gone wonky with AfD these days. It seems that at least some editors are prepared to discount "keeps" because they are not stated in terms of rules lawyering. Observing that a page is useful and informative, or that it has been here from very early in the project and has thousands of edits from many different hands, is for some reason not good enough. If the "rules" lead to this page being deleted, there's something wrong with the rules. - Smerdis of Tlön 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclusion in Wikipedia is not per se a mark of quality (or most fancruft would've been deleted and hopefully forgotten by now) and neither is it an insult to the contributors that the content they have amassed over the years is moved where it actually belongs. All wikiprojects have their own role as reliable sources of information, and I think you should reconsider your view of them as mere scrapyards where content not accepted in Wikipedia is sent to wither and die of neglect. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said anything of the kind about the other Wikiprojects. What I strongly object to is the attempt to ignore consensus and intimidate those who disagree with this proposed deletion by proclaiming an intentional disregard for opinions that do not cite chapter and verse. Again, if the rules now require this, the rules have become the problem, not this article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with Peter's discounting of votes, I do find this discussion to be a largely one-sided one intellectually. None of the keep votes have been followed by any serious rebuttal to the claims in the nomination. I share Peter's frustration in the debate's one-sidedness because Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy and yet many people are operating it as if a simple vote count is enough to build consensus. AEuSoes1 04:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to cite vacuous clichés here, but "the map is not the territory." Every word of WP:NOT has value only to the extent that it is an attempt to synthesize prior consensus; it is not a law to set boundaries to consensus. This page has been around in one form or another since Dec. 24, 2001. It is valuable and useful, and frankly the obliteration of its history for average users would shock my conscience. To expect arguments founded upon policy rather than the opinions of users as to what belongs here makes policy a golden calf. This debate is one-sided for only one reason: one side refuses to listen to arguments that aren't framed in their terms. As a debating ploy, this is a fairly good "I win" button, but it has nothing to do with consensus. This is what riles me: not that the page has been once again proposed for deletion, but rather that the rules have taken on such a Frankensteinian life of their own that some people feel cowed to say that "while yes, the page is valuable, the rules say it should go; so it is written, so let it be done." Again, this suggests not that the page should be deleted, but that the rules have turned into something they never should have been allowed to become. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, WP:NOT is a general outline that certainly has exceptions, but what is the justification for making this article an exception? That it's useful? It's just as useful at other wikimedia sites. Are there any other reasons? AEuSoes1 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given some of them. It isn't a "usage guide" or a "slang and idiom guide;" certainly not within the meaning of these phrases, which by my understanding were intended to exclude every new neologism that appears in rap music to have an encyclopedia article, not this. It has an almost six year history of being at Wikipedia, with thousands of edits by more than a hundred editors. All of that vanishes if the last text is simply transwikied. I tend to think of it more as being in the tradition of a Mithridates, a classic reference book containing samples of many different languages. We could re-start it with other widely available texts in translation such the Lord's Prayer, but that would raise POV issues and may occasion sectarian strife. The current selection of texts add usefulness to the samples. - Smerdis of Tlön 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one has argued that it's a usage guide; I've argued that it's intended to be a travel guide.

That's a lot of editors. No one found the time to back up their claims and conform the article to two of Wikipedia's three main policies? AEuSoes1 04:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not look like a travel guide to me. Yes, it is useful to travellers, but so is, for example, List of embassies and high commissions in Ottawa or Travel medicine. Being useful to travellers doesn't make something a travel guide in the spirit of the WP:NOT policy. In the spirit of WP:NOT, I think you have to ask, "Is this of value for intellectually curious people who aren't travelling, as well as for people who are travelling?" Kla'quot ^Sound 05:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All of the "keep"s seem to say things along the lines of "it's useful, it's important." No one's disputing that. It reminds me of a lot of AfD discussions where a "keep," or the article itself, says "I'm trying to provide a guide ..." or whatever. That's nice; most of us are trying to create an encyclopedia. – ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Violates WP:NOT in multiple ways. And indeed, the 'keep' voters are not providing policy/guideline-based reasoning for their positions. wikipediatrix 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --BrenDJ 19:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Or providing no reasoning at all. Danny Lilithborne 21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Peter and wikipediatrix. People seem to forget that there are other websites besides wikipedia. GrahameS 05:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep somewhere within Wikimedia projects. Far more encyclopedic than Wikipedia's seven lists of Pokémon. If it doesn't cite sources, cite sources. If it needs cleanup, clean it up. If it has mistakes, correct the mistakes. These are not reasons to delete. If it violates WP:NOT, identify the right Wikimedia project and move it. Fg2 01:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it does violate WP:NOT and it's already on other Wikimedia projects, should we interpret your comments to mean that you'd like it deleted, Fg2? AEuSoes1 02:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was unclear. My "keep" vote is a vote to keep the information in Wikimedia projects. If it's kept on a Wikimedia project other than Wikipedia, I'd be quite happy. Fg2 04:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention invoking WP:POKEMON is always a red flag in an argument. wikipediatrix 02:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- per my comments as well as Angr's. AEuSoes1 02:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is a scope problem and has to go. "Wikipedia articles are not... a usage guide or slang and idiom guide". Whilst I find it potentially useful, this article is very clearly outside the scope of wiki per WP:NOT. I am very tickled by the inclusion of Scottish, which I think is complete bollocks, as it is the transliteration of what a particular regional Scottish accent. Wiki is also WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Aside from the main recognised languages, dialects and regional accents abound. Editors have obvious difficulty drawing the line at pidgin english, or pidgin French. We have included the main Chinese dialects, but there are tens of others. Now what about Brummie, Scouse or Geordie accents, for example? Ohconfucius 02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as violating WP:NOT, per most of the above. Sandstein 05:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Ohconfucius and Angr. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Smerdis and Smerdis' additional comments. Or split. —pfahlstrom 02:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I use this article almost daily and there has been a lot of work put into it and it is much more helpful to have it all in one place. Lady Lily 05:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)— Lady Lily (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

But is Wikipedia that place? -Elmer Clark 16:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that User:Lady Lily is a brand-new account seemingly created only to vote on this AfD. wikipediatrix 14:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too, but I choose to assume good faith. AEuSoes1 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not for its how-to value, whiuch is minimal, but because it helps the reader see similarities and differences between languages Kla'quot ^Sound 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already been pointed out by some of our resident linguists in the previous AfD that the comparative value of standard phrases in various languages is very low. Idioms of this kind don't allow for any kind of serious linguistic comparison because the phrases vary according to custom and culture, not the languages themselves. Comparisons like the ones you're referring to is best done with Swadesh lists, and we already have tons of them. Incidentally, there are plenty of people who think they should be deleted too. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this list is not a tool for serious linguistic comparison, however it is wonderful for more informal comparisons. E.g. it's something of a revelation to monolingual English speakers that a language could have three ways to say "please." Examples are also really the only way to get a sense of how the language sounds.

As AdiJapan points out below, the introduction is a problem. However the rest of the content seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. Some articles on individual languages (e.g. Greek) have a short list of phrases in the language, which is what this article mostly consists of. So perhaps there is a problem of organization, which can be resolved by splitting this article into smaller articles and linking them through an index page or category, but the content itself should be improved, not deleted.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, examples are of great educational value for the general reader. We're talking about a small number of examples per language, not a phrasebook. Kla'quot ^Sound

"Informal comparisons" sounds like trivia to me. Having language samples is never frowned upon, but if you want to get the feel for how a language sounds you should use excerpts from literature or lists of minimal pairs instead of tourist phrases. No recent language FAs have these kinds of lists because they're considered too trivial for serious encyclopedic articles. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your point. Looking over these comments, I get the sense that this AfD debate tends to split along "serious linguistics" versus "populist" lines. Are 15-20 examples of phrases per language, along the lines of, "How do you do?", too trivial for inclusion? I would argue that the general reader does not think so. Wikipedia has room for both literary and popular examples. Kla'quot ^Sound 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• transwiki, then delete Ironically while taking a break from Wikipedia, I found this article in a Google search while looking for how to say something in Japanese. Not bad, but this isn't the place for this info. Lets put it on a sister project so it can have a happy home. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly second this - the article belongs on Wikitravel, not in Wikipedia, but it would be a royal shame to discard all that work. ropable 07:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The only wrong thing about this article is its introduction. Otherwise I find the contents undoubtedly encyclopedic. It is the only article we have that allows a direct comparison between languages. The introduction should focus on that instead of talking about tourists. AdiJapan 13:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly you haven't seen The Lord's Prayer in different languages or any of the Swadesh lists. AEuSoes1 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article survives AfD, we should rewrite the intro and include links to the Lord's Prayer list and Swadesh lists. To avoid confusing the current debate, I'm not going to do this yet. Kla'quot ^Sound 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. For the above reasons. ng_iman 16:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. —Khoikhoi 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why do you three say keep, citing an argument that's already been addressed? Do you disagree with what User:Peter Isotalo said? Why? -Elmer Clark 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Stong Keep. I refer to this page a lot, I dont want to download it. I think it is a shame that people seriously want to deleate valuble infomation from wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakana-g (talk • contribs)
• Stong Keep. This is a valuable article to Wikipedia and should not be deleted. Jdas07 21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : per WP:NOT --Ragib 21:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep : This was the first page I ever edited three years ago today. It has grown into something that oodles and oodles of people on the internet have found of great value. Sample sentences of languages do have a place within an encyclopedia, and I recall seeing such before. Though this is admittedly the largest compilation I've ever seen. I really see no strong reason why it should be deleted. --Chris S. 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Common phrases do have a place in an encyclopedia, especially to those who are trying to learn a new language. Information and facts out on the web are unchecked, unlike Wikipedia where its users constantly keep an eye over any vandalisms or inappropriate translations. It is because of this that I would like Wikipedia to keep this page. Iman1102 23:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Same reasoning. While it may not be strictly "encyclopedic", it has great value as a reference. Maybe one day there will be a separate Wiki language reference... until then, if it needs work, it can be fixed; if it violates policy, then policy needs to be reviewed in the face of obvious USEFULNESS Twang 08:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Invaluable reference , specially for those learning langauges.--Jondel 04:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As pointed out above, it violates WP:NOT, and is not encyclopedic. -- Donald Albury 13:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Doczilla 05:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. agreed with nominator. A wictionary or textbook kind of information, nonencyclopedic. Also POV problem. what is "common phrase"? Hopelesly unreferenced. Finally verifiability problem: for example, in one language "Good afternoon" is translated as (a version of) "Salaam aleikum". Mukadderat 18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The list in its current form is not encyclopaedic and should probably be transwiki'd. However, some form of list of greetings in various languages would be encyclopaedic. Other problems include lack of sources. The main current problem I'd say is the title "common phrases" and "various languages" is not precise enough. - FrancisTyers · 19:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is deletion attempt three or more, so it becomes more and more difficult not to repeat old arguments. My reasons echo the user Catherine’s in the discussion of last year and Smerdis of Tlön’s of this discussion. The article is the opposite of pompous, ego-enhancing or elitist, it's fun, it's a large project with many voices working towards a common goal in relative harmony for a long period of time, it's what people enjoy finding and musing over in an encyclopedia (especially younger wiki surfers), it's still actively updated and linked to, it's useful and it's harmless---all the things that are wonderful about Wikipedia as a project. Perhaps the name can be changed and the languages divided into sub-groups to keep the size manageable? Pia 22:14, 7 September 2006 (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.